Future of the Bakerloo Line?

Because it you are terminating the trains at Queen's Park you need to use the footbridge for one direction or the other. If LO trains terminate in platform 4 (which they can do at the moment) then passengers from the southbound Bakerloo need to get over from platform 2 to join the train which is reversing.

Your quoting seems to be mixed up, so I've trimmed things down.

The issue would be getting something 'new' done. The existing situation on the Bakerloo has 'grandfather' rights as thing have been run this way for a long time and with suitable safety mitigations (tripcocks or TPWS). Even then, as class 313 made quite a mess of a Bakerloo train in the mid-80s when it hit the rear and rode over the back car. What would be the result of something heavier such as Class 350, 390 or even a class 92 on the sleeper?

Talk of running Underground stock into Euston seems to be to solve a problem which is better solved elsewhere on the line given all the other complexities.

Unless something has changed very significantly in LU over the last 10 years, an extension of the Bakerloo line to Watford Junction is unlikely ever to happen. As to an extension to Euston, I can't see any scenario where such an extension would be desirable or permitted. Switchable 3rd/4th rail operation is undesirable as would fitting 4th rail on the approaches to Euston, intermingling a tube train with main line trains on the busy approaches to Euston is undesirable, and having a platform or platforms that can olny serve tube trains and an inability for those trains to go to any other platform is also undesirable. I can't see any customer proposition that would be so compelling as to make it worth addressing any of these issues.

The Railways Archive quotes the executive summary of the report into this accident that occured on 16 October 1986:
"A southbound Bakerloo line LUL train, 2A1X the 16.49 from Stonebridge Park to Elephant and Castle comprising seven cars, was standing on the Up line at Signal No. KG6, which was at Danger and is situated about 20 metres outside the northern portal of Kensal Green tunnel, when it was struck heavily at the rear by a BR Class 313 three-car electric multiple unit, which formed 2C38 the 16.26 Watford Junction to Euston local passenger service. The impact drove the LUL train forward about 12 metres. The BR train's leading vehicle over-rode the rearmost car of the LUL train and came to rest on top of it but was not severely damaged itself in doing so. However, the LUL train's trailing driving cab and most of the passenger accommodation of the rearmost car were completely demolished. This car was forced under the car ahead, which was also severely damaged and lifted some 3 metres above the ground where it came to rest supported by the damaged vehicle.

There were about 25 passengers on the BR train and 20 in the LUL train; I regret to report that, in all, 23 of than were injured and required hospital treatment."

Paragraph 50 of the report states: "50. The collision was entirely due to [the driver of the Class 313], who, on proceeding past KG8 signal on a marker light
authority, did not drive his train with sufficient caution to enable him to stop short of any obstruction. "

You can read the full report at www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Kensal1986.pdf

So I believe the overground (or BR) as it was back in the day, had exclusive use over the tracks north of Stonebridge park for a few years around the time the bakerloo split off from the jubilee. Why was this done and what service was run over the DC line with these trains pretty much having sole use of the lines for most of it? Even after (or before?) this, the present all day service to Harrow only began around the late 80s, which meant BR again had to provide the full service for much of the day? How frequent was the service?

It has been done before in the past so could easily be done again.

After the Bakerloo stopped serving Watford Junction I feel sure that there was a time when the Bakerloo more or less ended at Queens Park, but then the new depot at Stonebridge Park started becoming a destination.

The enforced change at Queens Park was not liked. Especially in the winter. Off-peak BR trains were every 20 minutes and this was too infrequent to attract passengers.

The fact is that many passengers like through trains to Euston. Its the quickest way to Central London and the existing tube services to further destinations are very good. But, many other passenger prefer the one-seat solution, and for destinations served by the Bakerloo it might even be quicker than interchanging at Euston. Even if it isn't, some passengers are willing to accept longer journey duration as a price of retaining the 'one seat' solution.

Thank you Sir Humphrey for that enlightening explanation...

I went back to Clive Feather’s History of the Bakerloo (up to the start of this century) and Atkinson, Adam and Clarke’s History of the North London Railway, Volume 1 – London’s North Western Electrics. The latter has a good account (p.65) of the 1962 unfortunate rear-ending by a BR 501 unit of the rear motor coach of stationary 38TS train causing it to telescope into a standard stock (1927) trailer. But think on…colliding any two components of largely different masses can often result in significant damage. (Harrow & Wealdstone witnessed one of the worse such examples of disparate masses colliding on adjacent tracks in 1952). I’d hazard that if one of the several daily mineral trains rumbling through Denmark Hill could have a similar or worse effect on a stationary Sevenoaks or LO service. So as long as intelligent signaling and control systems are in place, mixing stock of differing buffing capabilities is not necessarily an argument to ban TS from Euston. It happens in several other places, e.g., the AVG trams running from street trackage and then straight on to the main-lines also used by high-speed trains around Karlsruhe and I’d guess that the trams are probably flimsier than TS, which in fact interworks with Surface Stock—essentially mainline vehicles west of Rayners Lane, between Acton and Ealing and of course north of Queens Park. I still think a lambda (λ) route configuration Watford—Queen’s Queens Park;-- leg 1 to Euston, leg 2 to Elephant (and beyond) is worth serious consideration.

History of the Bakerloo Line, C. D. W. Feather (2020) and History of the North London Railway Volume 1 London's North Western Electrics Atkinson et al (2015) are still both in print.

AVG –https://www.avg.info/fileadmin/user_upload/avg/Dateien/Unternehmen/Geschichte_AVG.pdf (In German).

So what is the difference of two National Rail trains colliding and a tube train vs a National Rail stock train. I don't think there would be that much could be done. It is the same if it were a National Rail stock vs a frieght train.

I'm sure that Tom can comment with more authority, but I believe that while old and new Victoria line stocks were running at the same time, both were communicating with the same signalling system - something that required a lot of work to implement as a temporary situation and would have required a lot more if it was going to be a permanent operation.

If not to be entirely outdone by those photos of heavy DB freight sharing the same tracks as AVG trams, p. 136 of the London’s North Western Electrics book op cit shows ‘Black 5’ 45278 trundling along at Stonebridge Junction with a 501 unit brought down from Wolverton after overhaul. As via Watford South Junction was the only logical route from Wolverton to Stonebridge Park, it’s not wild speculation that this ECS movement followed/preceded a Bakerloo Line train on the same tracks. Proves the point about mixing TS with ‘mainline’ stock.

For my lambda (λ) suggestion a simple solution would be to pack the ballast to elevate the tracks through the stations from South Hampstead to Watford, thus raising TS floor level to platform level. However, this might impede use of platform 2 at Willesden Junction for LO Hampstead trains starting ending duty there and the possible reinstatement of routes such as Croxley/Watford—Hampstead/Chalk Farm—via Camden Road to destinations east thereof.

Regarding Euston: Train lengths are 1972 TS 113.6m, NTfL 113.7m (18 double doors per side); BR Classes 350: 82m, 378: 101.4m, 710 (4 cars, 8 double doors per side) 83m (5 cars, 10 double doors per side) 103m. Platforms 9 and 10 are 200m long. The southernmost 115m could be reserved for Bakerloo trains low floor-level (600mm above rail level) and the remainder, as required for use by BR types < 85m (floor-level is 1,151mm above rail level). viz Stuttgart, Brussels where trams intermixed with conventional trains. However, I may be wrong, but sense there is a very strong almost ideological, “We don’t do it that way here attitude.” Checking out the moving platforms at Union Square on the IRT Lexington Avenue line would be a good starting point.

.

Or the moving steps fitted to many rapid transit vehicle outside the UK

Jimbo's post above is correct. Detected by the old with movement authorities passed by the existing signalling to the 1967 stock trains, and with the new system 'listening in' on the existing and passing movement authority (based on the geography of the existing system) to the 2009 stock trains.

Yes there was a diversion of an HST set down the DC line many years ago.

This probably crawled along and was likely piloted by a DC lines driver.

Things have moved on of course and I consider the relative tube/mainline train collision risks similar to a car hitting a lorry!

Maybe though hauled by a diesel loco?


Anyway, yes, at one time railways were just that and providing the train physically fitted the route (not too wide / tall / heavy for bridges etc) then almost anything could go anywhere.