Bakerloo not going to Watford

it was hyped up, thinking that 67 stock could be used to cover the extension (probably initially with DC trains doing Watford-Euston as well).

I have heard the Bakerloo will not go to Watford until the upgrade. I think the current service is not good enough and I would expect a min 4tph to be honest.

Easy! Go back to the Camberwell plan and build a 3 platform terminus. The current restriction on the Bakerloo is the capacity of Elephant.

Is stepping back employed at Elephant?

About 15 years ago I understand that consideration was given to going back to Watford only drawback was cost estimated at 10 million approx, the resignalling of the line especially Baker St-Elephant reduced the capacity.

The depot at Stonebridge Park was constructed due to the failure of having a site that meet the requirements at Peckham, where a number of proposals loop, rise to the surface being just two.

Had the extension been built we would have had a junction at Camberwell with a branch going to Peckham and onwards and also to Herne Hill, the Southern region being against all of this going into their territory.

For most of them yes! I imagine a few trains will linger on as spares for the Bakerloo and in case the Watford plan does happen.

Basically, yes.

The proposal to convert 67ts for use on the Bakerloo Line was investigated in detail, but it was deemed not to be cost-effective given the timescales involved. One wonders exactly how much work was really required though - I guess the biggest problem would be going from 8 cars to 7.

However I think the plan is that some (don't know how many) units will be stored either on or off LUL for any possible future use. This will probably end up like the 72MkIts, with the units quietly rotting away out of sight until they eventually get scrapped.

Some other thoughts:

- the idea of keeping 67ts as a contingency in case of 09ts withdrawal is not feasible because of the limited space in Northumberland Park Depot and the massive logistical operation of moving 09ts out and 67ts in (and vice versa) - especially as 09ts can only move in/out by road.

- Isle of Wight (being investigated)

- Stripping of spare parts for Bakerloo Line

- Car 3052 is currently earmarked for the LT Museum

The main problem is that the each DM needs the adjacent trailer for its operating systems. The 1972 3 car units have a special trailer with carries equipment for the UNDM and the DM. This would be the main hassle for LU. It would also mean there would be some double cab trains in the fleet with DM-T-T-DM+DM-T-DM.

If the 'Loo is not re-extended to Watford, will that expedite the plans to re-route the Met to Watford Junction?

Shame about the demise of the 67ts - perhaps the comfiest tube stock in service at the moment.

Does this mean the Watford DC line will just continue as is? Are any of the proposed enhancments/changes to the former Silverlink Metro services going to happen, now (apart from the ELL extension)?

They might do something about the line speeds to begin with.

[source, TfL web pages]

Queen's Park to Oxford Circus: 16 min (6.5 km approx, 8 intermediate stops)
Queen's Park to Euston: 13 (o/p) or 14 (peak) min (6 km approx, 2 intermediate stops)

For all the complaints about the Underground being a short-distance metro service, not suitable for longer journeys etc. etc. it's actually quite a fast way to get around compared with the alternatives, much more likely to take you where you want to go too.

Wasn't something like that proposed in the post-WW2 plans for the "Northern Heights" extensions to Aldenham?

I still like the idea of Queen's Park - Stratford as a way to relieve the Willesden Junction - Camden Road section of the North London Line, and obviously so Primrose Hill can be re-opened as well. The stations on the Watford DC south of Queen's Park are barely used because they're so close to much better stations (Swiss Cottage and one of the Kilburns I believe), but providing an East-West service there could be very useful I think.

People coming from North of Queen's Park can usually get to their destination almost as fast by taking the Bakerloo and changing somewhere other than Euston.

Something somewhere mentioned cost, the implication being that LO had to pay a premium (to NR?) for using platforms/facilities at Euston.

On the wider proposal the logic as I understood it was that the present combined 9tph (off peak) running between Queens Park and Harrow was an over-provision, and that running 3 of 6 Bakerloo line Harrow terminators on to Watford would save running the Euston service.

The problem would seem to be what to do with Kilburn High Road (~400,000 annual entries+exits*) and South Hampstead (~160,000 annual entries+exits*) - a permanent service via Primrose Hill, even if possible, might not be what these travellers want.

One could speculate that the removal of the Euston service could be mitigated by stopping some London Midland services at Queen's Park where there are the relevant platforms. I can't see London Midland being too thrilled by that idea, but it's also possible that taking LO trains out of Euston would give them some extra capacity.

*2006-7 figures - www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529