The Chelney Line

I am for southwards extensions of the tube as well with the Bakerloo up to Lewisham as originaly planned.
But the main problems with extended lines would be the overcrowding, extend the Victoria south would be a great idea but as that line is already overcrowded the situation would just get worse; I don't know the situation of the Northern line Charing Cross branch (which would form a separate extended line in your mind).
The main aim of the Chelney would be to relieve the congestion of the Victoria line and to service Dalston an area which from the few I know don't have good transports links.
A tube gauge Chelney line would also permit an interchange at Piccadily circus thus also helping the Piccadilly line.

In my opinion this should be the top priority with Crossrail and in the longer term southwards extensions of the existing lines could also be build as well to offer new services.

Chelney/Crossrail Line 2 is simply needed because the Victoria Line can't cope with it's passenger numbers (and the 10-15% capacity increase under PPP will not be enough to make much of a difference). Chelney was to also improve access to the tubeless Hackney, and nearly tubeless Chelsea. It would also relieve part of the Central Line by taking over either the Epping or Hanault branch. Crossrail Line 2 would take over SWT services from Clapham Junction, and a choice of lines in NE London. This would help relieve Waterloo and to a lesser extent Victoria NR termini.

The Chelney proposal is now all but dead, and I think the construction of any more tube profile lines is very unlikely. Crossrail Line 2 will be very expensive and is not likely to happen until well after Crossrail, which will be a very long time. In the mean time the Victoria Line will become more and more congested.

Personally I think a larger profile (to fit S-stock), self contained automated metro line along the Chelney/Crossrail Line 2 alignment would be a better option than both. Maybe running from Clapham Junction to Leytonstone. By running shorter trains (120-140m instead of Crossrail's 180-220m), and at high frequency to keep up line capacity (33tph instead of Crossrail's 24tph), then the tunnelling costs would be a lot less than the Crossrail Line 2 option. It would improve line reliability. On the downside, it people would still have to change to get onto it from NR, and depot placement may be a problem. Smaller profile LIM metro may be another option to keep costs down, as could be a Barcelona Line 9 style monotube line.


As for the Bakerloo, I do think that an extension to Peckham would be beneficial to that area, and would take advantage of spare capacity on the Bakerloo Line. But it wouldn't help relieve overcrowding on other tube lines, just buses.

An extension of the Northern Charing X branch to the SE from Kennington would be beneficial to South London. If the Northern Line were to be split, it would allow for 30tph+ operation on both branches, and would thus help reduce congestion on the two branches. However, it wouldn't relieve any other tube lines, just buses.

Well if the Northern were extended south to Streatham or even Norbiton they could build it as offshoot of Kennington loop and the , as has been suggested, have two separate lines. {Maybe 'Edgware line' and 'Barnet line' for names]

Well that seems a bit odd to me. Why have another underground junction when an offshoot tunnel to/from the loop would be easier to build

Correct me If I am wrong but do I remeber someone saying to me years ago that once you go through the shed out into 'the garden' at Morden Depot you ar within shouting distance of 'Morden South' Southern station?

Thank god the line didn't go beyond Morden, the Morden branch is crowded enough as it is!

Palace Gates, Enfield Town, and Chingford were GN&C proposed destinations in 1937 (though this service would be shared by an express line to Victoria).

In 1939 Morden - Totting Broadway - Clapham Common fast tracks were proposed, with a link to the Northern line there, and a line from these express tracks via Victoria, Green Park, Bond Street, Great Portland Street, and Camden Town to Finsbury Park where the GN&C would again meet the new line and have services on it's branches. Cuffley and Enfield Town were the proposed termini.

Then you have the Express tubes - allowing fast running south of Kennington and on the Charing Cross Branch. and so on...

Keeping with the Northern line theme, I'd hate to be on the Charing Cross branch before the Victoria opened!

Also, a Kennington - Brixton extension would relieve the Victoria line somewhat.

Moving onto Chelney: stephenk, I think your idea for S stock sized tunnels would work. In fact I like it so much that I said "building tunnels S stock can fit down" at 12.58pm yesterday (in the post above your post). To further your idea, I think that taking it down to Raynes Park (need to rebuild Wimbledon if coming from Clapham Junction, or put the line in tunnel underneath) and thence to Epsom and Chessington would be the obvious solution to balance the line.

Simon

I tell you what WOULD be useful thing to do. That is to make the Richmond/Stratford and Barking/Gospel Oak lines part of the Underground. A very useful link avoiding central London. Especially if the potty ELL extension to Dalston is built. Then it could be linked up with the line that runs via Denmark Hill in south London. With a further connection somewhere south of the river a complete outer circle cound be made a.la Berlin's 'Ring Bahn'

I agree. I would much prefer a self contained, frequent, fast, reliable, and cheaper self contained metro, than an expensive, not so frequent, and prone to delays Crossrail Line.



Well actually, there were a few (non-Northern Line related) proposals mentioned in "London's Lost Tube Schemes" that would have reduced the need for Chelney (certainly the NE portion). Unfortunately, they may have also reduced the need for the Victoria, and thus we may well have still ended up with a lack of SW to NE capacity.