Extension, formal consultation started

Modern Railways October edition seem to suggest that the Bromley town centre extension will also take over the Bromley North line, terminating at Grove Park.

There has been debate on how the Bakerloo should go to Bromley. I think it should go in a tunnel after Beck Junc and stop at Shortlands, Brom South, a new station on Bromley High Street, Bromley North, comes out of the tunnel and goes to Grove Park. There's also a fan-made map suggesting that there could be a branch to Bickley. Maybe take that further to Orpington and, if possible, Sevenoaks. I have also seen ideas of the Camberwell option going to Lewisham and the Old Kent Road option heading to Charlton, Greenwich and Dartford. OKR option one can be called Bricklayers Arms and station two can be Old Kent Road. From there, it can stop at South Bermondsey, Evelyn Street, Cutty Sark, Maze Hill and then to Dartford. It would come out of the tunnel after Westcombe Park.

Don't see why they can't go via Bromley North to Bromley South & then on to Hayes. BN & Hayes Branch can feed into the Tube rather than be taken over. Bromley South is well-served by buses, too & is only just off the High Street. I reckon they could also run feeder park n ride buses from the intermediate stations on both those branches to reach the Tube stations-more room than at the respective termini.

I agree the extension plans you mention-doubt they will, though. Remembering who it was that skewered Ken Livingstone's Fares Fair via the High Court, anything that disturbs Bromley's leafy lanes too much could be similarly sunk. Even such visionaries as you and I would need to sell it to them very carefully indeed!

As to using both OKR & Camberwell, the sensible thing would be to serve both on one line, and then extend from OKR towards New Cross Gate if the area does indeed expand as predicted. You can, after all, purchase and earmark station sites well in advance.

Apart from the route to Lewisham I doubt if there would be an economic case for more tunnel sections which is why everything past there is on existing lines. LB of Lewisham commissioned their own report on possible Bakerloo Line extensions in 2010, they estimated the cost of tunnelling to be £200m per mile with an additional £50m for a subsurface interchange with an existing station and £100m for any new subsurface stations.


Have you got a map reference or whatever for that, I can't see anything big enough on Google Earth to sit half a dozen trains overnight between Lewisham and Ladywell. Croxley depot isn't going to be much use for stabling first and last trains out of Hayes or Beckenham Junction

No, I was suggesting they go via Beckenham Junction to Bromley North, then link up to Bromley South & continue to Hayes, rather than take over either branch & all that will involve.

Bromley South sees 6 million a year useage, Hayes 1.15 million, Bromley North 0.64 million. There are certainly few other heavy traffic areas around those parts unless one goes further, which they clearly will not consider at present.

So it may be Bromley South is the key Bromley station to link to a Tube?

I think that Lewisham underground station should be built with safeguarding for possible XR3 platforms which would be much better then sending the Bakerloo to all these places. Hayes and Bromley is pushing it. Even if the Bakerloo tunnels were rebored to have S stock like trains. Places like Dartford and Sevenoaks is just too far giving the amount of stops.

You would however need to deal with thousands of displaced commuters while you were doing the work. Look how long boring the tunnels for CR1 is taking, it wont be much quicker. Indeed is the space to do this where the line runs in proximity to various features (other lines, stations, sewers, the bed of the River Thames, etc)?

Thank you for giving me a good laugh. Re-bore the Bakerloo between Queens Park and Elephant. Straight out of Crayola.....

Yes, and this also allows a fast/semi-fast service along that line with two tunnels and a back-up for emergencies and delays.

Unfortunately, whilst cheaper may still be an option, cheap is not. TBM's cost a fortune to build and run, compared to the original Tube tunnels, with labour-intensive pick & shovels behind the Greathead shields, but still cheap labour nonetheless.

That cost factor is the crux, and one reason why this consultation, like everything else, will um and arr along, whatever any or all of us believe should be the case. Modern life is complicated, I suppose!

Highly unlikely, Boris is bored with City Hall and is aiming for No. 10 but he's desperate to leave a "legacy" comparable to Ken's London Overground.

As a native-born SE5 man, I can tell you the clue to why it wasn't built is in the name.

Camber-well


Yes, it was the high water-table that scotched the 1950 proposal around 1955. There had been earlier ones in 1926, 1931 and 1939, and the initial idea from the Mayor of Camberwell was in 1912.

The ground isn't that hard. That old chestnut keeps turning up, but the 100 yards or so of test bore they made sometime in the 1930's from E & C found no evidence of that, but quite a bit of H₂O, part of which is due to one of London's lost rivers or a branch thereof around Camberwell-either the Neckinger or the Effra, I believe.

EDIT/UPDATE

Had a look at another of Mike Horne's excellent Capital transport Series on the Jubilee. The 1939 proposal was in fact 1938 & was formally cancelled simply due to lack on money in 1952, one new siding having been put in at Stanmore depot on 1.2.52, just before the formal cancellation.

And, whilst we are in that book, just take a gander at this diagram of the 1938 proposal.



Now where have you & I seen this before??

Have not only left the explanatory text with the diagram, but a little of the book's text, so you can enjoy the wonderful typo-if only we could be discussing those figures, eh??

Hopefully they will keep them for reversing / short runs!

I was thinking more about Charing Cross (Jubilee) style of solution.