Future of the Bakerloo Line?

If Stonebridge park depot closes, does this spell the end for Stonebridge Park terminators? Feels like an odd destination to turn short at, without the depot

To the credit of the Bakerloo Line staff, I’ve been finding journeys a lot more pleasant recently. The new lighting has done wonders for the atmosphere of the trains, and if I’m not mistaken the volume of the announcements has been bumped up to make them properly audible which is a great touch.

From the 3 options on page 5 - the third option, “An optimal balance between impact on delivery and passengers” sounds like the best one. Or that line sounds good but we can’t know what the option is

The second option is the one I thought could be a complete temporary line closure with its “significant” impact on passengers. Unless it’s saying “keep the old trains going” which is also possible.

We’ll find out in due course I guess…

Can the 73 supplement the Bakerloo line once they start being withdrawn?

This was discussed in another thread which I can’t find now. Think it was that the cost of converting the 73TS for the Bakerloo line would be too much - it’s poorer value than getting new stock.

but I better not say more




Indeed. Human obsolescence and succession training is poorly managed.

I suppose that there is a balance between cost of trains and providing a useful service. Ideally the service to Wembley Central should be improved as this is the main Bakerloo destination north of Queen's Park. The existing fleet already runs six trains per hour to Harrow & Wealdstone during the peaks and the cost of additional extra trains (the fleet size is already planned to be larger) won't be a large part of the overall modernisation scheme if a new depot is to be constructed.

Additionally what will the balance be between lengthening platform 2 at Willesden Junction and ordering a couple more trains? Currently there is only one lift to the low level platforms, but lengthening the bay further will probably mean that there needs to be a separate lift on platform 1 as well given the lack of space to the north end of the platforms. Given the elongated nature of the Stonebridge Park site, the reception road(s) could still be retained for reversals even if the depot itself disappears.

The extended Bakerloo will not use the existing Elephant station or overrun tunnels, a new station box has already been provided by the developers of the over station site.

The problem with Bakerloo trains terminating at Willesden Junction is not just lengthening the bay, but maintaining access for Overground trains to Willesden TMD if there is going to be a Bakerloo in the bay most of the time.

The Bakerloo line extension will use new platforms at Elephant & Castle, so they couldn’t start digging from the existing overrun. (Sorry to disappoint!) would’ve thought the tunnel boring machine(s) would start from ground level at the southern end of the extension?



Given the timescales involved, is it possible that they’ll find a new/enlarged depot site on the existing Bakerloo line? Given that funding isn’t confirmed yet for the extension, so a southern depot wouldn’t be constructed for several years. While the report implies that the 72TS are in urgent need of replacement

I don't know how it came about, but the current order of trains for the Piccadilly Line is considered sufficient for a 30tph service, but only 27tph can be operated under the current signalling. When funding can be found for resignalling of the line, it will also cover a build of further trains to operate 33tph or 36tph. To cut the cost of new trains for the Bakerloo line, couldn't the last of the current Piccadilly order be diverted to the Bakerloo, allowing a smaller order of new trains for that line. This will mean that the resignalling proposal for the Piccadilly Line will increase by an equivalent amount to build more trains than was originally envisaged. Robbing Peter to pay Paul perhaps, but it might enable the Bakerloo case to pass the line using trains that would otherwise be surplus to requirements for some time into the future.

27 / 30 tph x 94 ordered suggests 9 trains will be surplus to requirements.

My suggestion was only that the cost of the line upgrade could be reduced by the cost of 9 trains with a saving of some £144 million (94 Picc train contract cost £1.5 billion). They would be maintained at the new line depot alongside the balance of new trains, and not required to return to the Piccadilly Line. If/when additional Piccadilly Line trains are required for a service increase with resignalling, an additional 9 trains would then be ordered to restore the fleet.

Mind you in those days both lines had conventional signalling.

Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE) safeguarding link here. Interesting how sharply the line curves to reach Wearside depot site. Was the possible surface depot site, mentioned above by alpinejohn , the land at New Cross Gate which is to be used for spoil disposal by rail?

The New Cross Gate site is the base for tunnelling, and provides for 300 metre trains to deliver tunnel segments and to remove spoil. It also provides for a slurry treatment plant to separate the spoil recovered and return slurry to the tunnel face. It is intended to launch two tunnelling machines towards Wearside before they are recovered to be returned to New Cross Gate to then launch west towards Burgess Park station. In the meantime the tunnel towards Wearside can be completed with track, signalling, etc. Two conventional tunnelling machines will already have launched from Burgess Park station site towards Lambeth North to allow time for connections to be made with the existing Bakerloo Line tunnels. The Wearside depot may therefore be used as a construction depot for the new tunnels and perhaps also for the Hayes line conversion, before becoming stabling sidings. The New Cross Gate site cannot be reinstated until all tunnelling is completed. Perhaps this eliminates it as a possible depot site for the Lewisham extension, but it might be equipped to stable additional trains for the Hayes branch if that is commissioned later.

There would appear to be little remaining railway lands along the Hayes branch, except maybe room for a few sidings in current parking space. Conversion of the line with new signalling and platform heights would take a lot less time than the tunnelling work to Lewisham, and therefore works on the branch could commence later but still open at the same time. However, to spread expenditure, it might be preferred to delay start of works on the branch until the tunnel extension was opened. This would allow longer for the New Cross Gate site to be converted for rail access. It will already need access to the new tunnels to allow for slurry and tunnel segment delivery. A suitable inclined tunnel could also later serve for train access to a new depot. The site could probably accommodate double-length roads, and is wide enough for around two dozen roads. However, Stonebridge Park, or a similar north-west site, will already have been rebuilt to support the new fleet. New Cross Gate would only need to be a subsidiary depot in the south-east.