Future of the Bakerloo Line?

The Berth in Ruislip siding is particularly generous and would probably take a 2024 Tube Stock train plus Battery locos at either end assuming that a 2024 stock train is not longer than the existing 1972 stock.
However, it would probably be the only berth that would support such a train!


Why would Battery locos be needed? The 1972 stock fleet can run on the Jubilee line quite happily without them today as an incompatible train (under procedure).

If delivery of the stock requires drivers who know both the stock and the route then training sufficient drivers will be an integral part of the planning process. An alternative would be to conduct stock-trained drivers over the part of the route they do not know.

Indeed. Planning and replanning several times in so many cases...
For the postulated stock moves over LUL only routes, Test Train Operators would be the usual solution, having the route training and before the moves, the stock training.

Interestingly at least one of the only two "Engineers train operator" that I personally know is also a "Test train operator". Or so they said. By engineers I mean they drive battery locos on engineers trains, but they also drive stock on ITMP too. I don't think I have mis understood as they said it was the extensive route knowledge necessary for battery locos driving that enabled them to easily take on Test work by stock learning. I will have to interrogate them next time we have a beer or three. But am this is also why unsure where test train operators are drawn from.

I wonder is the 1972 stock move done often? Does it involve disruption to the public service on the Jubilee? Would it be a practical method for a daily transfer to and from the Bakerloo at the ends of the traffic day? If so, it sounds ideal.

Any movement of 1972 stock from the Bakerloo to Jubilee line must be done in Engineering Hours only .

Yes, by the method I mentioned. Now and again is manageable. A full fleet would take a lot of careful planning due to the impact on Engineering Hours access to the railway for normal inspections and maintenance each time there is a stock move under an ITMP.

True enough. You'd need an ITMP for the 2 locos plus one Bakerloo line train scheme too though due to the formation being over length for the signalling's 138m limit.
Not easy is it!

Interesting! So which would cause the least disruption? An unequipped 24TS train, or an over-length train with signalling equipped battery locos at each end?

Given that descoping projects is a well known cost saving move by excel operating mandarins, there is one course of action methinks this forum has overlooked ?

The root concern of the depot issue under discussion is indivisible train length yes? as the proposed replacement single entity trains are longer than splitting the present 7car 72 stock ?

A fix is don't build new trains that are any longer and can be split then so don't need to lengthen depot***

3 things :

1 - while it may not appear to be directly possible to reduce a train length (based on Picc. train) by the right amount by what we currently know about the Siemens design and can not be simply divided into two parts, this does not prevent some other design solution

2 - it is only an aspiration that Bakerloo will get the same basic train type as Picc. - there is no Bakerloo stock on order, yet, they not even gone to tender on that AFAIK, so a specific procurement process could specyfi and lead to something that fits depots needs

3 - before anyone howls with protest about possibly shorter trains, if the line were fully upgraded and further to a higher capacity level by enhanced signalling could reduce headways increase TPH and make up this loss

*** that is not to say the depot will not need any building work; it will; it just won't need lengthening; nor any relevant sidings, headshunts, etc etc, it will just need a method of working for handling split units, some sort of tug would do, just like a wheel lathe tug; costs a lot less than completely rebuilding a depot

The depots will also likely require significant upgrading to work with any new train design given the 50+ years of technological development since the 1972 stock, and that includes a theoretical design that featured no walk-through carriages.

The new Siemens trains have been a long time coming. With the collapse of Metronet, TfL were faced with providing new trains for the Bakerloo. They decided that a new design for just 36 trains would be uneconomic, so grouped it with the Central Line to share a common design, which led on to the Waterloo & City to avoid a remnant small fleet there. It was only with the later buyout of Tube Lines that a more urgent need for new trains for the Picc arose. One common design shares set-up costs, and will reduce staff training and maintenance costs throughout its life. The contract provides options for later line builds without retendering. The current Bakerloo line trains need urgent replacement before possibly serious aging flaws lead to a service suspension. The next design of tube train will probably be for the Jubilee to suit the platform edge door spacing, and may take advantage of the gentler curves of larger tunnels and longer platforms than current trains, just as the Victoria Line design did. The Northern Line fleet will also be coming up for replacement, but the Piccadilly line trains would fit well there also, subject to retender. That leaves no simple solution for an alternative design for a small fleet of trains.

I think we could all agree with the thought "if I were you, I wouldn't start from here"! However, going by past experience, a new line would be ten years off from planning to opening at least, and probably more to modify an existing line. That doesn't solve the problem of replacing 50-year-old trains before they give out.

Any pictures of this