Report and further consultation on Bakerloo Line extension

Considering we built the channel tunnel,this should be a doddle.

A bit like Ricky-Watford Junction then?

I remember reading somewhere on the forum that the 72 Stock could serve to the 2030s. If this is the case, is there any chance that 72s could see brief use on the extension?

I couldn't see conventional signalling being installed on the diversion or extension so the answer would have to be only new trains.

...you're forgetting that (broadly) that's how Watford Junction was proposed to happen on the Met. Indeed, no money to install ATC was part of what ultimately killed it off.

Would need more trains for the extension, so why not replace the current ones also for a standard fleet? I can't see a new line being built without platform edge doors these days, which will require standard door spacing for all trains on the line.

The NTfL design cannot have the same door spacing as traditional tube stock, as the bogies are shared between carriages and therefore underneath the carriage ends. You can't put a single leaf door where you'd find them on older stocks.

We are looking at the early 2030's before the 1972 stock is replaced. If they want the extension built and opened before then, they will have to either replace the Bakerloo fleet before the Central, or do both at the same time.

If the trains are identical (other than cosmetically) then there is nothing to stop the two fleets being replaced at the same time, but the change over period on each line will approximately double with each line getting one new train every fortnight rather than every week. There may be public relations benefits to doing this, but whether those benefits would outweigh the costs of the longer transition period* I don't know.

*The big costs will be more new staff will need training on the old stock and the old stock will need maintaining longer. The new trains may also not be able to reach their full potential for longer, but that depends on the detailed differences between trains.

But this could also allow the stock in the worst condition to be disposed of first, at least reducing the impact of a longer transition period?

Interesting thought. One can imagine an overlapping service, with the NTfL concentrating south of Queens Park, but the 72ts strictly north of Elephant.

With the re-provision of a new Elephant station there is the possibility that both old and new platforms might end up in use concurrently (depending on how construction of the junction and new alignment are carried out, and the eventual plans for the new station platforms). This might suggest in time a Crossrail type solution during the transition phase, with new stock terminating north-to-south at Elephant under ATO stabled at the new depot, and the existing stuff with tripcock south-to-north at the old platforms.

It will be very interesting to see the project mature, and the options refined. Not to mention the added interest of what sort of signalling solution will eventually be deployed on the joint section to the north end.

Unworkable - seems a bit harsh.
Unlikely - possibly.

Whilst this latest round of consultation is presumably needed, but it does have worrying echoes of the Croxley extension project where after endless studies costing huge amounts of money it was eventually be killed off as neither affordable or politically expedient.


Inherently if the bean counters consider it the best approach, then I suspect there may indeed be some merit in trying the "having your cake and eat it" approach at Elephant.

If I read the consultation documents for the new extension correctly - yes they plan to create better located platforms for the Bakerloo at Elephant. A classic step plate connection would need to be created somewhere to the north of Elephant, so like the Northern extension connection the rest of the work could be virtually ready for use before they actually need to shut down the current terminal platforms.

That approach would avoid the revenue impact of subjecting passengers to an extended line closure with neither set of terminal platforms available.
Hence it seems quite possible there will be a period when both facilities are potentially available for use - I recall that even after the Jubilee line extension opened they retained the flexibility to access the old Charing Cross platforms to respond to service disruptions. I wonder if the same may apply at Elephant.

Doubtless TFL will wish to minimise the period when they need to pay out to staff both facilities at Elephant, but that will doubtless be factored into a cost benefit analysis by someone in TFL towers to determine the best way to launch the extension.

I cannot see any irretrievable commitment in the current extension plans which states the extension will definitely coincide with the introduction of new rolling stock. I am sure that will be great news - but only if it is also affordable.

Indeed given the huge amounts involved in trying to fund both developments simultaneously, there could be pressure to defer or at least minimise the initial expenditure on new rolling stock to operate the extended route. This may mean at least initially just buying enough trains to service the new extension but with options for extra trains later. This becomes particularly relevant if TFL are eventually are required to completely take over the route to Hayes (to free up paths in Charing Cross for Network Rail. Hence I think another ROSCO funding solution may well be needed.

Whilst doubtless there may be an "optimum" solution for TFL, life has a nasty habit of requiring sub-optimum solutions from time to time.
Whether funding constraints mean that a sub-optimal solution would be needed at Elephant for a period is something only time will tell. Inherently economics will dictate whether or not the existing Bakerloo and extension route ever operate from separate platforms at Elephant.

The situation at Charing Cross is completely different. The escalators are still there and are only blocked by a wall which has two doors.

In the event of a loaded train being routed into the station the passengers could be evacuated via the stationary escalators.

I said unworkable in that how would intending passengers know where to catch a train and how would people in the old platforms get to the new platforms to continue their journey?

The location of the new platforms is clearly shown in the documentation.