Peckham extension proposal - is this for real?

LB of Lewisham did a report on possible extensions to the B'loo, London Reconnections did a post on it back in 2010. Worth a read

www.londonreconnections.com/2010/bakerloo-extension-a-report-to-lewisham-council/

As Mike Brown said unless someone can come up with £12bn for projects currently in the planning stage LUL won't be able to do anything after the Northern and Sub Surface upgrades. Unlike Battersea to the ebst of my knowledge there are no big developers willing to pay for the B'loo to be extended down to Lewisham. Boris can say what he likes as he knows that after 2016 he'll be heading to Westminster and it will be somebody else's problem.

What I fail to grasp here is the correlation with some other, supposed facts. I do apologise that I can't confirm either way myself due to my location, so I do look to you guys to be my eyes and ears on the ground there.

I understand that Waterloo is extremely congested during the morning peaks, less so now since the concourse was redeveloped separating the passenger activity from the retail activity. I understood that a comparitively high percentage of peak arrivals continue their journey using TfL facilities (bus, tube incl W&C) [from the TfL terminals study].

I understand that there is serious platform congestion affecting the tube lines, and large lines at each bus stop (central area direction). Crusty54 tells me as daily user of the W&C that he only needs to wait for one train if the other is very full. Does this correlate with other regular users' experiences.

Serious congestion issues have required pro-active steps to be taken to restrict access to the Victoria Line, elsewhere. Is there a risk of similar issues developing at Waterloo - due to a combination of organic growth, longer trains in the extended platforms and re-use of the platform capacity at Waterloo International?

If so, can I ask why any steps would be taken to INCREASE the loadings on tube trains arriving at Waterloo to serve the peak direction? By extending a line that passes through Waterloo, if it attracts sufficient patronage to prove its value, it can only exacerbate capacity problems at Waterloo. (Includes the NLE to Battersea)

So let me ask the historians, why does the Bakerloo continue to E&C? Is it an effective interchange? Could it be an effective interchange?

If the answers to both the latter questions are in the negative, then why aren't all Bakerloo trains terminated at Waterloo? This would allow an increase in tph out of the existing fleet.

The rationale for extending the Bakerloo is that it is underutilised south of Waterloo. No surprise. E&C looks to me to be a convenient turn-back point for Waterloo, not much more. If more had been intended, I think a properly integrated interchange would have appeared long ago - 1920s or under the New Works Plan. And thus, there'd be more traffic on that section. Please remember this is just an opinion, not a well-argued case.

A final question. The W&C is constricted to a subsurface depot and short trains. Graham Hewitt has explained that extending Bank platforms is feasible. But the only way to extend Waterloo would be to use the Depot. Now many of you will know of my XR3 proposal (the latest in a long string of similar). But let's set that aside for now. If the Bakerloo turned back at Waterloo, could the W&C be extended to E&C so give access to London Rd Depot and an alternative turn-back point? Using 72/67ts, the W&C trains could be lengthened initially to 5-car, then 6 or 7 depending on the Bank scheme. This extra per train capacity along with two terminal platforms, should allow a major increase in capacity for the W&C. It should thus more than compensate for the modest amount of extra traffic from E&C. (Such an alignment would be of little value for the suggested Peckham extension)

It shouldn't be forgotten that, as well as the interchanges with the Northern Line and what is now Thameslink, Elephant & Castle is a major interchange with road services. Up until the abandonment of the tramways in 1952, it was the major intersection on the London tramway network, with services heading out all over South London.

most people who interchange between modes of transport at E&C are regular commuters. As one of said commuters, trust me that the subways are not a barrier as the North roundabout you can wait for the pelican crossings and the south roundabout no longer has subways.

The interchange with TLK is a little mo0re complex though, agreed!

Thank you NF, for your thoughts and feedback. Appreciated.

It's an interesting question to ponder as to whether the much greater development of the LCC electric tramway network south of the river was what prevented tube promoters planning to extend there in Edwardian times.

GH

Indeed it's worth remembering that the trunk routes to Croydon between them were scheduled to have in excess of 120 trams per hour in each direction and all done with manual point changing through a very complex track layout! I haven't done the sums yet, but I believe that the Elephant track layout had to face in excess of 200 tph in each direction with plenty of conflicting movements.

mikebuzz - I agree with your analysis for the period after 1910. What is puzzling is that very few if any schemes were promoted south of the river in the period between 1902-1910, which is before the existing tube lines (ICLR etc) had turned in poor results, when Yerkes still could confidently finance the Hampstead line and well before (a) the introduction of the B type and the takeover of the Standard Omnibus Co - which is what marked the real expansion of bus services - and (b) the completion of the LCC electrification programme and the expansion of the private tram companies. The only serious competitors in S London were the horse buses (hardly a serious opposition) and the SECR/LBSCR and yet all the tube promoters piled into the Hammersmith/Fulham- Piccadilly/Strand - N London axis; why? BTW the geology of S London is not particularly unfavourable to tube construction until you reach the horst to the NE of Croydon apparently.

GH

Well there was a lot against promoting tube railways even by 1902. Not just finances/costs/competition (heavy competition from bus and tram even before much tram electrification*), but also the minefield of parliamentary procedure and the involvement of a few sharp operators. What was opened in 1906-10 was more or less already given the go ahead and financed by 1902.

Yerkes had finance as did London Suburban/London united (Yerkes = Hill and London United Tramways, Morgan was the backer to London suburban, Speyer the backer to Yerkes' UERL, people often wrongly connect Yerkes with Morgan). Even then, Yerkes ditched the District Deep level and merged it into the Piccadilly, which was a merger of 2 other lines and a few extensions such as to Angel and Fulham were ditched. Yerkes just about got the finances together by 1901/2 then built a trimmed down version of the various lines/extensions proposed, which opened in 1906/7. The CLR only added the Wood Lane loop in 1908 to serve the Olympics and the CSLR only went ahead with the extension from Moorgate to Euston approved by (IIRC) 1902. Both these companies extended to catch obvious traffic and make their lines work better. The CSLR had the City & Brixton and didn't build it.

The 2 major backers in the London Suburban - Morgan and LUT (tramways) - fell out with each other in 1902 before final approval was given and the LUT was bought out by Yerkes. Morgan withdrew in 1903 as backing tube lines was already being considered a risky venture and Yerkes didn't pursue the LUT lines even though his company put forward extensions covering much of the Morgan/LUT route. The CLR had proposed a huge loop through the centre of London connecting both ends of the CLR via the main part of the Morgan route in 1901-2 but they didn't step in when Morgan failed either.

The only other serious one was the NWLR but it never got the finance even though it was active from 1899 to 1910!

That just leaves the Syndicate and (off the top of my head) 3 independent proposals 1901-3. The 3 independents (Victoria, city & Southern; East London, City and Peckham; City & Old Kent Road) made brief appearances before parliament and disappeared, the Syndicate proposals were just a scam. None of these can be considered serious.

In terms of south of the river c.1902-10, there were additional factors. The central area was north of the river and most of the opportunity to link into it from the suburbs was north of the river, or to be precise north and west. The southern railways had good commuter capacity and (for the most part) terminating facilities in the City/West End or very close to it, the northern-to-western ones didn't. The south was criss-crossed with railways with only limted through traffic from further afield. Tunnelling through the gravel beds covering much of south London was much more costly (and this was known about). 2 of the Yerkes tubes were old 1890'a proposals (Hampstead and Bakerloo), one to connect north with south but extending north, the other just north with south. Given the prevalence of south before/at this time (CSLR and W&C) its understandable. The Brompton & Picc was central area only, the GN & Strand a GN promotion into the centre to relieve overcrowding (as was the GN&C). The Brompton, Bakerloo, Strand, Hampstead extension proposals were in both directions. Morgan/LUT was 3 lines and much more north-orientated but more suburban than Yerkes. The metro one was north-south on both sides of the river. The main route was central plus north and west, the other was in the east but stopping in the City, both these were essentially suburban in nature.

There was certainly an interest in the 'Hammersmith, Piccadilly and City' route, encouraged by parliament, promising higher fares (to the Albert Hall, heart of the West End and City) and it is understandable. That - Syndicate et al aside - there was a lack of interest south is understandable IMO, with the obvious exceptions being Victoria-Oval-Greenwich and Old Kent Road. Then again, all those Hammersmith-Piccadilly-City proposals bit the dust too even though they were pushed quite hard and by a few interested parties. The sums didn't add up and the money wasn't there. Yerkes and already-opened tubes were the exception. Maybe the East London city & Peckham or Vic, city & Southern didn't even hang around long enough to hear their schemes read because they were even worse from a financially viable pov.

*It has often been commented on that taking over the bus companies killed off tube promotions but it happened before as it was the competition from the pre-existing bus operators (and tram) that killed it. Indeed the impetus for takeover was to absorb competition and feed it into the tube railways. Even by 1902 there was a lot of bus and some tram competition along the sort of routes the tube schemes were interested in.

castlebar - you are right (of course!) that it was the horse buses that were there at the time of the great wave of tube promotions. Until the B type appeared in 1910, there were no reliable motor bus vehicles available and the percentage of the bus fleet that was motorised was very small. The date is crucial: before 1910, bus competition could be largely discounted in terms of speed. The trams were a more serious competitor in the Edwardian period, but even then, electrification didn't approach anything like completeness until c1906. The other noticeable thing is that bus fares started at 6d, and the services generally started well after 0800 - they were catering to a different market to the trams and the tubes. [BTW, London traffic speeds are the same now as they were in 1910, or indeed in 1880 ...]

mikebuzz - I agree about rail coverage (after all, it was the remoteness of Paddington that provoked both Shillibeer, even before the GW was built, and the Met to start from there) but there were quite extensive services - eg NLR - in North London before the tubes were promoted, and Broad St was a very convenient City terminus, Snow Hill/Holborn Viaduct similarly so the opposing train services may not be the whole answer. Maybe the differing attitude of the mainline companies had something to do with it?

GH

We have to look at tube promotion from the perspective of the time. There were no business levies, funding gaps, franchise grants, DoT expenditure or TfL budget. It was all about private finance and capital, financial houses and banks, share issues and investor groups, and money put up by companies. No doubt opportunities were missed by the the time the Edwardian era came to a close, but decisions were made after a long hard look. Reading the various schemes from the 1880's to 1900's it is apparent too that promotions that were easily approved in say 1893 would never have been given the go ahead in 1903. If parliament and the LCC were a bit too harsh, investors too shy later on, the opposite was undoubtedly true earlier. I don't think the City & Brixton with no backing, impractical, and somewhat doubling up on an existing route, been given Royal Ascent in 1903 if it had not already been approved in 1898.*

*Everyone was asked to withhold their applications before parliament until 1905 anyway to wait for the conclusion of a sluggish and wasteful Royal Commission.



We have to detach central (i.e. destination) areas which were all north of the river from inner London and suburban areas in any direction. Much of what is considered north is actually west and quite an amount of it further south than the Thames east of Temple. Of course North London had railway coverage but the slightly more solid coverage of rail, tram and omnibus south of the river was enough to make overcrowding more of a problem north of the river - good enough for 1 or 2 more schemes to get through that is. The southern railway companies were also less amenable to having tube railways operating on their patch, i.e. the only ones really backing it were the LSWR and GN. There is also the legacy of north-of-the-river-based sub-surface lines and their affect on schemes, and the electrification south of the river.

Broad Street and Liverpool St served the City it is true, but as I pointed out, these were east. All this talk of south not getting and north getting, seems to ignore the fact that tube-wise East London got nothing before 1946. Even the north just got 2 lines to Finsbury Park because the GN was (just about) more supportive than the southern companies, and the Hampstead to areas without coverage. If we throw in the proposed routes its much more favourable to the south. It just happens that London's Victorian/Edwardian tube map seemed to fan out to the north, northwest and west (and maybe southwest). If we're going to compare central+north+east+west with south then we are bound to have more in the first category than in the second.

Indeed yes I concur and the point about the influence of the rich in the big houses coloured the thinking of the time as these were private ventures and high fares were an important factor (note the prevalence of SW interest and Hampstead, even the Bakerloo started off as a promotion to link Waterloo with lords!). The LCC may have been socialist but they preferred trams (and harboured a desire for tram subways) and made life difficult for prospective tube backers - always insisting on working man's fares and road widening schemes. After the war the emphasis was on joining up existing lines and pursuing a few extensions - linking the Hampstead and City, extending north and south; Central along the GWR to Ealing; Picc along the LSWR disused/District tracks and north to areas not provided for (ditto the Met to Stanmore). Schemes that would have been cheaper into the south were not possible because the southern companies weren't interested. Later on when London's transport needs were (theoretically at least) planned in a proper economic context and indeed under the LPTB very much a nationalised undertaking, the opportunity for extension in the south still didn't happen. That's because the costs were so great not a lot of stuff could be done and the Southern Railway was more obstructive than ever - Lord Ashfield actually wanted to incorporate various southern routes into the Underground Group but failed. He didn't even get the Drain. So the new works made short links to take over existing routes - Bakerloo to Finchley Road, Central to Stratford, Northern to Highgate. There was also Bushey Heath and the Eastern Avenue tube, but if this had been tried in the south there would have been opposition. also of course, the southern railway(s) had gotten there already (some lines weren't completed till after the Great War).

The only example I can think of that might have gone ahead was Camberwell et al on the Bakerloo, bringing us back on topic! Even then, the lack of appeal of the much less built up south east suburbs (and Dulwich itself), lack of outlet beyond Camberwell/Peckham due to SR obstruction and greater costs (even if not that much) of tunnelling south of the river it shouldn't be a surprise that it never went ahead. I would take issue slighlty with your geographical representation pre-WWI though. There were substantial outlier suburbs (exurbs) in the SW and NW, high density areas stretching not just north (Lea Valley but also Finchley, Hornsey, Highgate and Barnet) and south (the corridor down to Croydon, but also Sutton) were joined by others in the north east (Walthamstow, Ilford). In short most of the areas that got some satisfaction by the time of the LPTB and the remaining priorities following in the New Works.

Is there any need for a Tube line to run beyond Lewisham? The point has already been made upthread about existing usage patterns. Why would the Bakerloo be superior to an NR or joint NR/LO service over the Blackheath - Bexleyheath - Slade Green/Dartford routes? 

If the Bakerloo terminated at Lewisham, the DLR could be extended from Lewisham to service the Kidbrooke Estate you have described, having an eastern interchange at Eltham. I suspect the DLR technology would better suit a new estate and would introduce welcome direct service to Docklands, as well as comprehensive interchange possibilities at Lewisham.

The Bakerloo extension could trigger a joint NR/LU station replacing the former Brockley Lane station (LU separate underground) and interconnected with the NR Brockley station - consistent with the point made upthread.

If you cut all tube lines to zone 2, where do you send the trains from beyond it that would otherwise have to reduce other services on NR? Into new NR routes through/to the centre? These would need to be 'tube' as well given the need for tunnels.

On the developer front, its always a good idea to try and get money that way, especially if it doesn't dictate too much the scheme in question, but the cost of for example a Bakerloo extension is going to be many many times the amount of money a developer can fund. There might be some scope for redevelopment along a particular route, for example the old Bricklayer's Arms route or via the Aylesbury Estate, or a combination of the two. Much developer contribution could be made covering most of an extension along these routes to New Cross etc. Redevelopment can also offer opportunities for upgrading existing routes, e.g. extra tracks, new stations etc. along the West London Line or in this case the South London Line.