London's Railways - Planning For Peace - A London Inheritance A London Inheritance A Private History of a Public City Menu Leave a reply Around this time of year, a number of London stations are in the news for the considerable amount of work that is on-going for rebuilding, the creation of new lines and what always seems to be the inevitable overrunning engineering works. The work at London Bridge and for Crossrail being just two examples. Major schemes have always been in various stages of planning to address London’s ever increasing transport requirements. Some schemes have reached completion, others never moved from the conceptual stage. For this week’s post, I want to illustrate one set of schemes that were published in January 1946 and show how usage of the main London stations has changed over almost 80 years. In the middle of the last war, there was a general feeling that the tide was starting to turn and planning could start for what London would look like in the decades after the war. How could the city be developed, what would be the transport needs of Londoners in the future, how could both the city’s infrastructure and landscape be improved and better use made of the limited space available?

In 1943 the London County Plan was published, then in February 1944 a committee was established : “To investigate and report upon the technical and operational aspects of those suggestions made in the County of London Plan of 1943 which relate to the main line and suburban railway system of London, both surface and underground, bearing in mind that these suggestions are intended to contribute towards and form part of a comprehensive scheme for the re-development of the area in question.” The report from the committee was published in 1946 and made some very far-reaching proposals, that had they been implemented would have had a dramatic impact on the transport system we see in London today. Before getting into some of the details of the proposals, it is fascinating to compare the use of London stations between the 1930s and today. The 1946 report details passenger numbers of all mainline terminals up to the end of 1938 , the latter being the last year free from the influence of war.

The following table compares passenger arrival numbers during maximum morning peak hour pre-war and in 2010 (the 2010 figures are taken from the “Central London Rail Termini: Analysing Passengers’ Travel Patterns Policy Analysis Research Project” published in September 2011 by Transport for London): Station 177,900 223,500 Whilst overall numbers have increased considerably there are some fascinating individual station comparisons. I bet if you use London Bridge on a daily basis the fact that in 2010 passenger numbers were still slightly below the 1938 level is of little comfort. Perhaps reflecting the different options for transport and the changes in home locations for those working in central London, there are some significant swings. Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras, Waterloo and Victoria all showing significant increases in passenger traffic whilst King’s Cross, Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, Cannon Street and London Bridge are all showing reductions.

There were a couple of major themes within the 1946 report, perhaps reflecting the “anything can be done” attitude needed during the war, and a realisation that the changes caused to London by heavy bombing presented a major opportunity to improve London for everyone who lived and worked in the city. A similar approach to that taken by Wren after the Great Fire of 1666 when he proposed the creation of a city more along the lines of Paris than London had been with an ordered city with straight boulevards and a logical planning approach rather than the numerous small lanes and alleys of pre-fire London . The major themes of the 1946 report were: The removal of the head on terminals at Charing Cross and Cannon Street and the high level stations at London Bridge and Waterloo Junctions and the associated bridges across the River Thames The construction of an extensive series of deep level tunnels and interchanges to replace the above ground infrastructure and to provide improved passenger and freight transport across London, capable of meeting the expected increase in both freight and passenger volumes. As well as the removal of the bridges across the Thames, the viaducts across south London were also seen as a problem.

Not just as a wasted space, but that they also split communities and their replacement by tunnels was seen as a way of integrating the many communities of south London. This was one of the areas where the rebuilding of the rail system would contribute into the overall London plan by making redevelopment of large areas such as the South Bank possible without the extensive railway infrastructure across the area. In these proposals it is also possible to see the ideas behind Crossrail where trains from outside the immediate underground network are routed in tunnels across London with deep level interchanges with the tube and other rail networks and with the surface. Whilst the destinations are different, the concept is the same. The following map from the report identifies the possible routes: The options shown in the map are: Project A: A new deep-level North Bank link from Battersea to Deptford via Victoria, Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Shadwell, Wapping and Surrey Docks Project B: A new deep level-loop connecting Waterloo Junction, Charing Cross, Blackfriars, Cannon Street and London Bridge and then by tunnel via the Surrey Canal rising to join the existing surface systems in the south and south-east.

Project C: A north-south tunnel, an underground link to replace the existing viaduct from Snow Hill to Loughborough Junction Project D: A northern arc suburban passenger route, passing below the main line stations at Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, King’s Cross and Liverpool Street with interchange facilities. The projects also included the electrification of all remaining lines into London. I did not realise how much of the rail network leading into London had been electrified by the start of the last war. We tend to think that this was still the age of steam, but into London, the percentages that were already electrified after completion of the 1935 / 40 New Works Programme were: Southern Railway: 86% London and North Eastern Railway: 26% London Midland and Scottish Railway: 32% One of the other projects considered for the rail terminals was “The reconstruction of terminals at two levels, with flat roofs for future air landing”. Just shows the difficulties in trying to forecast how transport will be used in the future. Removal of the bridges across the river was considered important as “the merit of a clean sweep of the three rail bridges over the Thames between Westminster and London Bridge cannot be denied”.

How different the river would look today without the rail bridges. Some of the themes driving the need for change are the same now as they were in 1946: “Size and Distribution of Population. For many decades past, London has embraced a rising proportion of the total population of the whole country, which has itself been rising. During the inter-war years approximately half of the increase in London’s population could be attributed to immigration from the provinces Decentralisation of employment, for it is one of the guiding principles that industry also should be de-centralised and there are proposals for satellite towns to be located, and existing towns expanded beyond the green belt. Increasing traffic. Experience shows that, as income rises, the demand for transport rises more than proportionately, irrespective of transport to and from work.” These words could equally have been written in 2014 as they were in 1946, and in 2014 to support the second point could also be added the ever-increasing price of property in central London driving people further out in search of affordable housing.

The following map from the 1946 report shows the proposed routes in their wider context and the considerable complexity of these proposals (click on the map to open a large copy): London Bridge Station was singled out for special interest. Total passenger numbers in the peak hour in 1925 was 38,000 and grew to 55,000 in 1938. In planning the proposed changes to the rail system, an expected 75,000 passengers was considered the level for which an upgrade should be planned. As well as moving part of the station underground, an alternative site was considered and a major new underground / overground station was planned for a site adjoining Tower Bridge Road (as marked in Map No. 2 above) The following map shows the first and second priority routes and also tunnels for the use of passenger and freight traffic. This was still at a time when significant volumes of freight traffic were carried by rail. The explosion of road transport, the motorway network and the considerable use of lorries for freight was not forecast to have a major impact on the rail system in 1946 (again click on the map to open a larger copy).

The cost for the priority works were estimated as: North Bank Route Total Scheme 49,550,000 This was rounded up to £50 Million, which was then doubled to take into account the cost of land, property, traction equipment, rolling stock and signalling, plus a further £10M for other ancillary works, giving a total estimated cost of £110 Million. A considerable sum just after the war, also given the financial situation of the country at the time. The cost of all proposals in the plan was estimated at between £228 Million and £236 Million and these costs did not include the cost of electrification or any other works outside of the proposed tunnels. Estimates of construction time were “under the most favourable conditions, would not be less than 30 years”. New types of train were also recommended. The majority of overland trains on the Southern Railway comprised carriages with six-a-side compartments, however the safety needs of operating these trains underground required the provision of rolling stock with some form of through corridor to enable passengers to pass in emergency from one coach to another.

The types of trains in use at the time were made up of six-a-side compartments and an overall train could carry 1,050 passengers. A 10-coach train of similar length with through corridors reduced passenger carrying capability down to 600 passengers. A challenge with the proposed approach as an increase in the number of trains would be required to carry the same number of passengers without any capacity for the expected increase in numbers. So what happened to these proposals which would have had a very dramatic impact on the train services and stations in London as well as the view along the Thames if the removal of the rail bridges had gone ahead? As well as the very significant costs of the proposals, shortly after they were published alternative committees were also set-up to look at options for upgrading London’s transport services. London Transport planners also prepared their own report which was published the following year in March 1947. On the 1st January 1948, the British Transport Commission took over London Transport as well as the main line railways. The Commission also set-up a new working party to report on transport services within London and a report was completed in late 1948.

The multiple reports, high costs and the economic state of the country in the late 1940s and early 1950s put on hold this type of far-reaching proposal and development of transport within London followed a more individual project approach. Some of the 1946 proposals did get included in alternative projects. For example the Brixton branch proposed in 1946 was eventually covered by the routing of the Victoria Line to Brixton. London Bridge Station in all it’s complexity is still there and perhaps after the ongoing considerable rebuilding work including the work over this year’s Christmas break, will see the station reach the potential envisaged by the 1946 planners, although with the significant difference of being above ground rather than below. The sources I used to research this post are: Railway (London Plan) Committee 1944 Report to the Minister of War Transport – 21st January 1946 Central London Rail Termini: Analysing Passengers Travel Patterns. Policy Analysis Research Report.

published by Transport for London, September 2011 London 2 For 1 Sightsee Discounts With Travelcard or Train Tix What is The 2 For 1 Promotion The 2 for 1 promotion covers over 150 attractions in the London area. 2 for 1 requires a voucher printed at no charge from the promotions web site, plus a transport ticket issued by the railways that would enable you to get to the attraction that day. (The scheme is promoted by the railways) 2 for 1 means that one person pays the full standard adult admission and another person goes in free, irrespective of age. This means that the scheme is not normally worthwhile when children are involved as they normally go in around half price anyway, (you cannot use 2 for 1 to pay child admission and get another child in free). You have to check out each attraction\’s individual rules and regulations when you print out the voucher from the web site, the above is the general rule but individual attractions may have other restrictions. Attractions Covered And Savings One of the attractions of the scheme is that it covers many of the top attractions.

These include the Tower of London, Madame Tussaud\’s, London Dungeon, London Zoo, London Eye, Kensington Palace, Tower Bridge Exhibition and Hampton Court. Attractions do come in and out of the scheme. The London Eye is a good example. When you consider that the admission to the Tower of London is over £20 and the cost of a 1 Day Travelcard is around £12 the savings are very worhwhile. Key Points Of The 2 For 1 Promotion – To qualify you must have a valid railway ticket with the railways logo on that is valid to get you to Central London on the day of entry to the attraction. Single railway tickets are only valid on the day the railway ticket is used. Return tickets are valid for 2 for 1 the entire period between the outward and return legs of your train ticket. – Or a valid Travelcard issued by the railways, (not by the Underground, TFL or on-line) – You must have a 2 for 1 voucher for the attraction. You can print as many vouchers as you like at no charge. – The deal is normally for standard walk-up tickets, not fast-track and not to be used in conjunction with other promotional tickets.

However, there are a few attractions in London where you can book 2 for 1 tickets in advance. – The vouchers have expiry dates. Near the expiry dates a new set of vouchers are put up on the official web-site. Each voucher cycle some attractions join, others may drop out. – There is no limit to the number of vouchers you can use in a day. 2 FOR 1 Advance Online Booking You can now book in advance 2 FOR 1 tickets for a few of London’s main attractions (The Coca-cola London Eye, The London Dungeon, SEA LIFE London Aquarium, Madame Tussauds London, Dreamwork Tours – Shrek’s Adventure and Ripley’s Believe it or Not! London) avoiding queueing on the day. You purchase your tickets to these attractions direct from the 2 FOR 1 web-site, not through the attraction web site or a third party. On the 2 FOR 1 page for the attraction instead of selecting the 2 FOR 1 voucher menu option, you instead select the Buy Online option. If you are not already registered you will have to register for 2 FOR 1.

After selecting that you wish to purchase an attraction on-line in advance you will typically be given a unique promotional code and switched to the attraction’s own web site and taken through a special ordering process. Most of the attractions available this way are the busiest ones and you are prompted to select the day you want entrance and the entry slot (often a 30 minute window of time). You pay for the tickets there and then. Note – you will still have to show your qualifying rail tickets on arrival. Qualifying Railway Tickets For The Promotion The facet that gets visitors confused is the qualifying rail issued tickets that can be used with the 2 for 1 promotion. If you are not travelling to London by train, your work around is to buy a Travelcard. Travelcard is a public transport pass covering the buses, underground, DLR and railways in London. The alternative Oyster pass is not valid for the 2 for 1 scheme. The only places that sell Travelcards with the rail logo on are railway ticket offices at Central London mainline rail stations, (Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras, Liverpool Street, London Bridge, Charing Cross, Waterloo, Fenchurch Street and Victoria).

All these also have Underground ticket offices and some have information centres which also sell Travelcards. Purchasing from anywhere other than the train ticket offices do not qualify. Travelcards bought on-line in advance do not qualify for 2 for 1. Its not all straight forward with the qualifying railway tickets either. The UK has a privatised rail system with many operating companies, not all of which support the promotion. Confusingly return tickets on the Gatwick Express and Stansted Express airport trains bought from the railways do qualify but tickets on the Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect do not. There are railways stations in the suburbs of London away from where most visitors stay which may sell tickets valid for 2 for 1. If a railway station is in one of the London public transport zonal areas it will sell both Travelcards and return rail tickets that are valid for 2 for 1. However, the ticket office at such stations must be operated by the railways for tickets to be valid for 2 for 1. Many stations are dual railways and underground/overground stations but unlike the mainline railway stations in Central London listed above do not have separate ticket offices.

Some stations like Heathrow Airport and West Brompton as a result do not sell tickets valid for 2 for 1 whilst Ealing Broadway does. The Cheapest Way To Qualify In 2016 If You Are Not Using The Train Into London To qualify for 2 for 1 you need a valid rail issued ticket that will get you to Central London and the attraction in question on the day of entry. Remember the airport trains from Gatwick, Luton, Stansted and Southend Airports (but not Heathrow) are valid for the promotion. If you do not have a rail ticket then the cheapest 1 Day Travelcards issued by the railways that will qualify you for 2 for 1 is a zone 1-4 Travelcard.

In 2016 the cost of a 1 day adult Travelcard zone 1-4 is £12.10 (you can no longer buy 1 day Travelcards zone 1-2) Assuming you are staying in Central London (zones 1 and 2) the maximum you can spend on an Oyster is £6.50 – so you are paying a £5.60 premium per person for using a 1 day Travelcard instead of an Oyster Card so you need to factor this into whether the promotion is worthwhile. If you are in London a few days then a 7 day Travelcard zone 1-2 is available and at £32.40 is actually cheaper than an Oyster for more than 5 days travel in zones 1-2 and about the same for 5 days. The railways do require a passport size photo in order to purchase a 7 day Travelcard. Perhaps the cheapest option for many is to buy a very short railway ticket purely to qualify for 2 for 1. For example a one-way adult rail ticket between Vauxhall Station and Waterloo is £2.90 in 2016.

Remember a one-way train ticket only qualifies you for 2 for 1 on the day of travel. If you are using 2 for 1 in a Central London attraction you really need a railway ticket to a London terminus railway station like Waterloo. Attractions differ on the level of scrutiny they apply to vetting railway tickets, but to make sure you should have a ticket to a London terminus – the attraction itself has final say whether they accept your ticket. If you actually use the rail ticket make sure you don’t use an automatic ticket barrier at your destination to exit the platform as the barrier will retain your ticket, go through a manned barrier. For the visitor its very confusing identifying which stations ouside the London terminus stations are run by the railways and issue tickets valid for 2 for 1. The simplest option is to look up the station on the National Rail web site. For each station at the top of the page it will state who is managing that particular station. (Opening hours of the ticket office will also be stated) If it is managed by the Underground, Overground or TFL Rail then tickets issued will not qualify 2 for 1, a railway company then you are OK, (except Heathrow Express).

National Rail Station Search Facility Photo ID Cards For 7 Day Travelcards Purchased From The Railways In 2012 the railways brought in a requirement that when you buy a 7 Day Travelcard you require a photo id card. This is issued free when you buy a 7 Day Travelcard, but you must bring along your own passport size photo. This rule only applies to 7 Day Travelcards bought from railway stations. (7 Day Travelcards bought anywhere else than the railways ticket offices come loaded on an Oyster Card and do not require a photo but are not valid for the 2 for 1 promotion.) You do not need photo id for 1 day Travelcard Related Information How/where will you be arriving/departing from London and where are you staying in London exactly James Isaac Hello Bob, We are a group of three adults reaching Heathrow on 13th January. We will be staying at Neasden upto 21st January. I wanted to know if it would make sense to buy a 7 day Paper Travel Card as we also intend to visit the Tower of London, Churchill War Museum, SeaLife, Madam Tussads etc.

We would be visiting Oxford and Stonehenge as well during the said period. I would like to know if the 7 day paper travel card would be the best option for me. If yes, where exactly can I get them. Thanks in advance, Bob You are in London 9 days with airport transfers so to qualify it would make sense to use Oysters on the first and last days and to qualify for 2 for 1 get a 7 day Travelcard zone 1-3 for the middle 7 days (Neasden is in zone 3) Your issue is to be where to buy the 7 day Travelcards from The nearest railway station ticket office to Neasden is Cricklewoood, connected to Neasden by buses You will need the passport photos for this purchase Patsy Chappell Hello Bob, We will be in London in March after reading a lot of your replys to others I have a few questions. We want to use the 24l offer on the first day at Westminister Abbey and Churchill War Room and The London Eye. On the second day we want to use the 241 at Tower of London and St. Paul’s. Please let me know what I need to buy.

If we purchase the 7 day rail can I do passport type photo here in the States and bring with me to use? If the answer is no to the previous question is there a photo type machine at Paddington Station we can use? I will be using the Heathrow Express to arrive at Paddington Station we are staying near Hyde Park. Also we will probably be using the underground and buses to get to a lot of the attractions, so can you use the travelcard or do I need to buy the oyster also. Thank you so much for your help. How long are you staying in London? Where exactly around Hyde Park are you staying? How may people in your party, any kids? Patsy Chappell We are in London for 4 days but we are going to Winsor on the day of arrival, and the last day we take Eurostar to Paris in the am. We are at The Royal Park Hotel near Paddington and Lancaster Gate Tube. It is just my husband and myself. Thanks for you quick responce.

The Shape of London's Rail Network - A Peek Into The Future - London Reconnections 14:00, 14 October 2011 Lemmo — 36 Comments In our previous post on the shape of the London rail network , we looked back at two key decision points which established our infrastructure legacy: the ring of termini that gave rise to the pattern of services which concentrates demand onto the city core, and the narrow 12′ standard for cross-city tube lines. It’s been hard to break free from this legacy, and to find ways to reshape the London rail network and expand the city core. While the core has largely remained the same as it was in the 1860s, London’s population and travel to work area have grown enormously. As a result, the challenge is to establish new travel patterns that take the pressure off this core. There are number of infrastructure options: New and improved orbital services that avoid the need to travel via the core – which may also encourage commercial expansion from the centre and create new travel hubs. Cross-city mainline services, such as Crossrail and Thameslink. These are inherently more efficient to run, release invaluable capacity at the termini, and offer multiple interchange and destination options.

They are, however, very expensive – particularly the stations – and there is a practical limit to how many new lines we can (or would want to) burrow through the city core. This is a subject we’ll return to in a future post. New capacity on the Underground tube and sub-surface lines ? this is already being implemented through the upgrade plan and, although it is bolstering the network as a whole, it is not altering its shape. Currently, there is no real discernable pattern to the proposed tube extensions: arguably they are simply developer-led (Northern to Battersea) or opportunistic (“ Hakerloo “). So what should be the role of the tube lines in a strategy to reshape the rail network? The limitations of the narrow (12′ diameter) tube lines are now well-recognised. Developing our previous discussion on tube extensions , as the tubes fill to capacity in the centre there may even be a case for ‘over-extended’ tube lines to be cut back, and for some outposts to again be served by mainline services. The tubes could then focus on providing an effective service through the centre, with key interchanges in the inner suburbs.

But we are jumping ahead, so let’s look first at the infrastructure investments that are being outlined in the London and SE Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) and how that might help reshape the network. Into the Land of Railway Acronyms Over the last few months we have looked at the RUS on line by line basis, and have explored the challenges of providing for growth on the radial routes where there is generally little or no capacity to spare. Type “RUS” into the search box under Archive and up they will come, although some of these discussions may now need updating following the final draft of the RUS released in July. To those unfamiliar with acronym-laden and seemingly tortuous governance arrangements, the RUS are the building blocks of the rail Industry Initial Plan (published on 29 Sept), which informs the DfT’s High Level Output Specification (HLOS) process. The HLOS defines what the government requires from Network Rail’s infrastructure in its next control period (Control Period 5, or CP5, 2014 – 2019) and what is expected of the train service operators. HLOS2 will be published as a government White Paper in summer 2012.

It may seem a cumbersome way of developing a strategic rail policy, but at present it’s all we’ve got. Intrigued LR readers with a penchant for evaluation and review may care to peruse the current HLOS (for CP4, 2009-2014) which was published as the 2007 government White Paper Delivering a Sustainable Railway . So, with the expectation that recommendations in the London and South East RUS will be bundled up into investment bids in the HLOS, it is useful to look at TfL’s own bid, summarised in its July 2011 recommendations for HLOS2 . As TfL states, the document has two purposes: (a) to influence the Initial Industry Plan, such that it contains TfL’s recommended schemes or near equivalents; and (b) to provide material which TfL and stakeholders can use to lobby government over the investment needed in London’s railways in the HLOS itself. The document summarises many of the recommendations in the London and SE RUS, and talks about a “rail strategy for London for 2014 to 2019”.

Tfl’s Take But the real point of difference is how TfL views the network as a whole, and then embeds this in a broader transport framework across London. This overview may be what gives rise to the new pattern (below) of “strategic interchanges”, and the hint that travel through London may not actually need to involve London at all. This is all very encouraging, although it does spark hazy recollections of London rail plans in the dim and distant past. Strategic Interchange Locations As we’ve already discussed, TfL’s role in running the Overground is rapidly evolving and, unsurprisingly, they are seeking to develop more diverse travel patterns using the orbital lines: 7.2.2. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy emphasises the role of strategic interchanges to assist orbital movement that not only improves accessibility locally but also relieves pressure in central area. The nature of this covers: Improving currently inadequate interchange in terms of quality Calling more trains on radial routes to make the interchange more effective Increasing frequency on orbital routes Physical changes to reduce the time it takes to change from one platform to another and thus to make the interchange New stations to allow interchange where none is possible currently So how will TfL achieve this?

Aside from the potential new governance arrangements , what does TfL’s vision of strategic interchanges look like in terms of infrastructure and service patterns? Both the RUS and TfL identify the orbital routes as a key focus for new investment, with increased service frequency and longer trains to meet what is expected to be a rapidly growing demand. However, this could be characterised as a ‘bit more of the same’ rather than a quantum leap in service pattern. Orbital Peak Traffic They are significant improvements nonetheless, and edge closer to the service frequency we expect from the Underground. Yet as we highlighted in our Overground series, they barely keep up with projected demand. Even with the proposed investment, the projections show that there will still be overcrowding on the orbital lines, and no other options are offered. AM Peak Traffic TfL also recognise that a number of these interchanges (and the lines from them) are already overcrowded. At the very least, significant investment will be required at Finsbury Park, Barking, Bromley South, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Clapham Jn and Wimbledon, and these are included in the £68m improvements package identified by TfL.

Station Schemes 2014 – 2019 Modest investments can certainly improve passenger capacity and the quality of the interchange experience, and they present an attractive business case for the HLOS. Neither TfL nor the RUS, however, offer anything specific on changing the radial service patterns so that more services call at these new strategic interchanges. Clearly the value of spreading the load through the orbital routes is largely negated if the radial services don’t actually stop there, but increasing stops at these interchanges will slow journey times and reduce capacity overall on the radial routes, and this will exacerbate the very problems that the RUS and TfL are trying to resolve. Getting Strategic with our Interchanges This begs the question: what exactly is a “strategic interchange”? Are they just points on a map where lines cross and there happens to be a station? Or are they expected to become hubs in their own right, engines of local economic growth, for which TfL’s new interchange stations become the pride of the network?

Given the Mayor’s purview in terms of planning and development, should “strategic interchanges” be created at places where there is greatest potential for growth, combined with the need to support new travel patterns that take the pressure off the city core? Let’s look at some examples. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy highlights Woolwich Arsenal as an exemplar, offering interchange between a radial route and DLR, plus integration with buses. But there is no talk of broader development themes, other than mentioning that the “strategic interchange will be further enhanced when the planned Crossrail station opens in 2017.” The Crossrail station will, however, lie 200m north which stretches the interchange definition somewhat. Woolwich Arsenal is also a two-track station with all trains stopping, so no changes were required to the service pattern. It does not have any of the challenges of interchanges on the mainlines. Conversely, Ealing Broadway, Willesden Jn and Queens Park are on mainlines through which expresses thunder. West Hampstead has always been the interchange that never was, and many trains actually by-pass the station at Lewisham.

Although Balham, Elephant & Castle and Vauxhall have Underground connections, so do Brixton and Kentish Town, but TfL has not identified these as strategic interchanges – and what of New Cross and New Cross Gate on the new ELL? Stratford may offer a better example of what we might assume a strategic interchange would be: at the heart of the monumental redevelopment for the Olympics, orbital lines north and south, tube connection, and the advantage that many mainline trains stop here. The RUS is proposing track layout changes that can provide an additional platform, and also explores the potential for more Lea Valley services. Looking west and into the future, perhaps Old Oak Common could become a new “super-hub” , with a new HS2 station at which GWML expresses trains would stop, linked to a resurgent Willesden which would become the WCML equivalent. To the plethora of connections on offer could be added a Bakerloo extension, or even blowing the dust off the curtailed District Olympia line and pushing it north.

Hammersmith & Fulham’s Park Royal International OOC has emerged blinking in the bright lights of both HS2 and Crossrail, driven by a local authority with economic development high on the agenda, and fêted by masterplanners seeing commercial opportunity. Is this likely to be a model that can be replicated in other parts of London? Ones eyes are naturally drawn to places like Peckham Rye, Brixton and Tottenham Hale, where economic development programs could focus investment on smaller-scale developments built around new transport hubs. This could then prompt a rethink on the purpose of tube extensions. For instance, should the Northern go to Brixton rather than the developer-led extension to Battersea ? And should Hakerloo be ditched in preference to a more modest extension to Peckham Rye ? In terms of service provision, perhaps there is also an opportunity to rethink this pattern of hubs linked by metro services, and think of these hubs as destinations in their own right which could be linked by fast limited-stop services. This could, for instance, allow rapid cross-London travel that avoided the city core.

The closest we have come to this was Anglia Railways’ London Crosslink services , which died a death in 2002 but could form the basis of a wider pattern of new services also using the West London and South London lines. Crosslink Options and Limitations But back to the nuts and bolts of the RUS and TfL’s recommendations for HLOS2. It is clear that delivering a coherent program of strategic interchanges is going to require major investment in areas outside London’s core, and particularly on the orbital routes.

We will explore each of the orbital lines in more detail in future posts, but suffice to say now that the potential to provide more capacity is limited by a number of factors: Platform lengths – especially on the ELL, which is limited to 4-carriages; the original ELL line had 6-car platforms but Canada Water, is only 4-car length Signalling, junctions and track speeds – historically the orbital lines have been a low priority for investment; therefore, aside from the new ELL, capacity is generally restricted by signalling and low line speeds Freight – the WLL and NLL are important strategic freight routes and metro services have to be interleaved with freight movements, but these two traffic patterns have very different characteristics and do not mix well. Or, to put it another way, TfL’s Overground aspirations will depend on its success in relocating cross-London freight flows to new routes outside London Inter-operability between networks – railway operators invariably shy away from passenger services that cross between regions, as they are prone to delay and disruptions can easily transfer across the network. Hence the radial routes into London have largely remained compartmentalised, and the orbital routes are largely segregated.

Although the proposed investments in the RUS are to be welcomed, it is perhaps no surprise that the plans for the orbital routes are conspicuously modest. It suggests that the investment value-add of these routes is hard to quantify, and therefore they remain the poor cousins trapped between the dominant radials, which then helps perpetuate the “ring of deprivation” around the city core. It is also clear that London’s rail network is coming up against some real capacity limits that require some outside the box thinking. On most radial routes there are very few options to create new capacity, particularly with the growth in longer distance commuting services. Here TfL is demonstrating some leadership, but it is likely to need a more visionary investment case to bring their strategic interchanges to life, and start to change the shape of the rail network. I imagine one day when they merge the 2 Catford stations a pretty penny could be made with the enormous retail space they will inevitably build on it.

Anonymous 14 October 2011 at 16:26 The idea of 4 ‘super’ hubs in the major London compass sections of N, S, E and W (what is the northern one?) makes a lot of sense but hugely beefing up smaller local centres I am less sure about. A few are no brainers in the long run (e.g. West Hampstead) but all come with difficulties. North Action on the central line sums up the weakness of the overground network and it would be very costly to effectively rebuild a dozen or so stations without actually increasing capacity as such, just spreading the load. The real answer lies in a network of 4/5 crossrail lines (no more than that so just 2/3 more than planned) not just because they bring an enormous amount of extra capacity but they offer the potential for extending, splitting, etc tube and rail lines. Suddely, a VL extension comes back into play as does splitting the jubilee. Crossrail in the West makes the Ealing branch redundant and long term that offers the opportunity for branching after SB either up Uxbridge road or down SW and helping out Waterloo.

AL__S 14 October 2011 at 17:21 “North” is a tricky one. The various National Rail routes (MML, ECML/Hertford Loop and possibly the two Lea Valley/West Anglia routes?) are quite divergent, and the orbital route passes very close to the centre (North london Line) or is low capacity/currently quite quiet (GOBLIN)- and interchanges between both the NLL and GOBLIN and the radial National Rail and Tube lines are mainly pretty poor. There’s Finsbury Park, but that just has the Great Northern stopping trains and two radial tube lines. The divergence makes a “hub” unlikely surely? There’s nowhere quite with the incredibal coming together of lines that OOC offers, there’s not even an equivalent to Stratford. Ratty 14 October 2011 at 17:33 The Outer London Commission described four super-hubs: Stratford, Croydon, Brent Cross (RIP) and “Heathrow” (whose meaning was never very clear to the OLC members).

Stratford, East Croydon (or Norwood Junction?), OOC and Clapham Junction at the 4 diagonal compass points, seems more reasonable to me. I presume Boris will promise Crossrail 2 in his manifesto next year(?) rational plan 14 October 2011 at 19:09 There are still a few corridors free under London for new tube or crossrail lines and they will always win out to any serious new orbital lines. They will be doing well to build new interchanges on the existing overground routes. To reiterate the only sector of London to have a healthy office market outside the core is West London towards Heathrow. Old oak common could have real potential for growth, but most interchanges have prospects for large scale redevelopment. As for the other ideas, it will take new crossrail lines for them to be able to cut back any tube lines (wasn’t that what the old chelsea-hackney line was in the first place?). Bakerloo will only receive funds if it can relieve the main network, so forget it just going to Peckham rye. Also they are busy taking developer levies in Batersea and Vauxhall, so the Northern line is going there.

Anon 14 October 2011 at 20:30 An advantage of orbital line improvements is that all the benefits are felt in London. In contrast, improving radial mainlines, e.g. London-Cambridge, mainly has the affect of making it easier to commute from Cambridge, and thereby accelerates the middle-class flight from London. Drew 14 October 2011 at 22:56 As for the southern superhub, would Wimbledon be better then Clapham Junction (I’m not sure, just suggesting!)? It has a wide radial route across southern London in Tramlink, it has Thameslink to south central and northern London (and beyond!), and also will be the terminus of the Chelney line when constructed. Most suburban trains stop there, and the range of trains stopping there could probably be improved. timbeau 14 October 2011 at 23:15 Tramlink is surely orbital? There is also the beginnings of an orbital route using the Kingston Loop, St Helier line, and Sutton – Croydon route. Drew Bakerloo extension yes – but not too far out.

I’ve bben watching the Hayes trains this past week, and they’re rammed now. Victoria from Brixton to either Herne hill or Tulse hill, with loop at end…. OOC PROVIDED it is a proper interchange. Where do the electrified GOBLIN trains go, West of GO? I assume they run East to either Grays or Pitsea via either Ockendon or Dagenham Dock, or alternate …. W. Hampsted needs travolators (!) Tott Hale ONLY if a third platform is built on the up side [ There IS room if the overbridge just to the South is rebuilt, AND said third track inserted all the way to Broxbourne.] More TRAMS – we’ve already had this spat about that. Croydon extension is a must, and I am of the opinion that X-river could still be a good idea – and, um, er, extend North to Camden Town and Kentish Town? The roads there are narrow, though, in some places, so you might get the Ealing/Southall problems that screwed Uxbridge-Shep Bush. Re-instate Point Pleasant flyover, and extend NLL to Wimbledon? Capacity problem?

Re-install Hall Farm – Lea Bridge ( a favourite of mine for obvious reasons), and split the newly 10-minute Chingfords to alternate to LS and Startford. Anonymous I’ve been banging the drum for orbital services for so very long. The four super hubs, as I see them, are Clapham Junction, Willesden Junction/OOC, Stratford, and London Bridge. The problem is with that last one as it’s actually a terminal, not a hub, and is nowhere near the LO orbital route. The solution I propose is a new super-hub station at “Surrey Canal Junction”, on the site of the incinerator. This station would have platforms on all of the South Eastern lines, all of the Brighton lines, the LO route, and any future Crossrail-style routes that might still be underground at this point. I think it would relieve London Bridge immensely. The problem with these studies is that they only seem to consider the orbitals as a way of removing congestion from the absolute central areas…so only do the minimum required to relieve the current congestion there. It’s not just freight that can bypass London…a significant chunk of passenger traffic can as well….and I mean Greater London, not just Central London.

I’ve long advocated not only East-West Rail, but a series of orbital routes that remove the need to go via London, as well as providing valuable freight and diversionary routes. I cringe when public figures describe the LO system as a rail M25. No, THIS is a rail M25. Likewise, the short-sighted notions of routing every easy service possible down a single (admittedly expensive) tunnel rather than planning for multiple routes that interchange. Case in point: The Chiltern Line is a perfect candidate for Crossrail’s apparent spare capacity in the west (though I still feel improving the GWML infrastructure out to Heathrow with 6 tracks could absorb most of that fine). It has an existing rail route to the Crossrail core and is crying out for investment (quad tracking, electrification, and 10-12 car trains).

Instead, we get cheapskates trying to penny-pinch the rebuild of Euston and route the WCML suburban services down there instead of giving them their own route down to new underground suburban platforms at Waterloo from new underground suburban platforms at Euston (interchanging with Crossrail at TCR), and leaving the Chiltern line to fend for itself trying to make the most of the hugely capacity-constrained terminus of Marylebone. Likewise…the ECML services could justify a 24tph tunnel on their own through to London Bridge to remove the need for any to terminate at Kings Cross as well as increase frequency…but instead, the current service levels (or at best, a slight increase) is getting funnelled down Thameslink. The MML is already hugely overcrowded…and when they upgrade the core to 24tph, they’re planning on using a chunk of that capacity for ECML services instead or increasing the frequencies on the MML to the required levels.

..and finally, just for seeding some ideas of your own, here’s a few of the overground orbital routes we could have had… Malcolm 16 October 2011 at 08:05 Delivering any improvement in orbital services will depend as much on fixing the stations as providing the capacity. More and more people seem to travel with all their possessions (judging by the size of the wheeled bags being used) and whilst they cope OK on the flat, they really struggle when changing levels. Moreover, many of these stations suffer from lack of investment. Try moving from low level to high level at Willesdan Junction with a 23kg case, and try waiting on the High Level platforms on a cold winter day!!! So, capacity and quality stations with escalators and lifts for level changes is needed. swirlythingy In that first map, what on earth is that long wiggly line coming off the south of the GWML right up at the western border? Staines West? Fandroid 16 October 2011 at 09:59 Wimbledon is shown as having an MTS Strategic Interchange Scheme on the books.

Fair enough, it is one of the busiest stations in the UK. However, it mysteriously doesn’t have any long or medium distance trains stopping there (except for tennis!) An Old Oak Common strategic interchange is so blinking obvious that I just hope that they don’t wait forever to get the details ‘just so’ before starting anything at all. New stations have been bravely created in the past, the usage has grown and grown, so no-one subsequently needs to pay consultants vast sums to wipe off their crystal balls and spend centuries ‘consulting’ before acting. However, having said that, I cannot help but think that the developers’ Park Royal International looks like a multilayered dog’s breakfast. It seriously looks in danger of losing its strategic function and only really satisfying the local development need. For instance: does Crossrail really need two (or is it three/four?) extra stations? Commenters here have again and again stressed the need for a Clapham Junction to Heathrow link.

OOC could provide that but the developer plan shows folk from CJ having to change at Willesden, then again at one of the uncountable new Crossrail stations (but not the one serving HS2, so bad luck if you want to go North in a hurry!). Let’s get this amazing opportunity right, for London and the UK, not just make it a convenient way to get to a shopping centre! Forgive me if this has already been said against the previous article, bit I couldn’t face looking at a load of architects’ Brave New World visions. timbeau swirlythingy – I think yout mysterious line is too far east to be Staines West – it looks like the Heathrow branch to me, but for some reason shows T4 but not T5. Fandroid 16 October 2011 at 14:57 The mysteries of maps that our betters create! Swirlythingy has got us going on the strange branch off the GWML heading south for some distance on the Strategic Interchange Locations Map produced by TfL. I too think it’s a dreamer’s recreation of the Staines West branch line.

A sad loss to the network that could have been a lot more useful than just providing a logistics railhead for T5 construction. (Curses on the M25 designers). Anyway, that map reminds me of the oft printed excuse in Rail magazine ‘ some lines and stations have been omitted for clarity’ ie: if you are totally confused, it’s your fault not ours. I think that the TfL map has omitted the Windsor branch from Staines. That doesn’t totally explain the difficulties as Staines West station was a lot closer to the Waterloo-Reading line than that little orange line indicates. Now, I’ll bang my usual drum. I’m hoping for, but failing to see some real vision in TfL’s proposals. We have all been so grateful for just a modicum of investment in London’s railways, that we dare not hope for a real connected-up network that will take people out of cars and ensure London’s future prosperity. The Overground has been a resounding success. We should build on that. Without some serious forward-looking vision we will never get the best out of what we have already got.

It might appear to be OTT to look immediately for a one-stop shop at Old Oak Common that incorporates slick interchanges between GWML, HS2, Crossrail, HeX & WLL (&NLL) (with the line diversions to make it happen) but unless we really say now that that is what we have to aim for, then it will never happen. We will have a West Hampstead all over again, where some lines stop, others don’t, and for those that do, the passenger has to confidently negotiate the wild streets of the metrop. If you are not a local, it’s quite intimidating trying to get from one ‘adjacent’ station to another. I have bewildered my way around between Paris Gard du Nord and Gard de L’Est (easy according to Seat 61), between Shoreditch High Street and Liverpool Street, from Bakerloo to Thameslink at Elephant & Castle and I daren’t try Walthamstow Queens Road to Central – I might never be heard of again. Westfield at Shepherds Bush paid for station upgrades and new stations, but left them all isolated from each other.

Don’t let’s have Terry Farrell’s redevelopment dream without spending real money on the rail infrastructure so that everyone (not just commuters and locals) can confidently interchange there without hassle. Fandroid I note that on the “orbitals peak” diagram that Denmark Hill is shown to the east of Peckham Rye! Somehow I don’t think entire suburb movement is part of future rail strategy. timbeau 16 October 2011 at 18:29 @Fandroid I don’t think that can be the Staines West branch – Staines is well outside the GL boundary (and on the Thames). Why would it not be the Heathrow branch? (It looks odd because LU lines are not shown (although Tramlink, DLR and LO lines are) – an odd omission in a map illustrating integrated transport proposals! Fandroid 17 October 2011 at 15:48 @timbeau You are spot-on with your geography. The squiggly blue line showing the Thames gives it away. As you rightly point out, omitting tube lines leaves out some vital connections, and makes some surface lines look disconnected (eg the Greenford branch).

Greg Tingey 17 October 2011 at 17:56 Actually, Fandroid, you’d be much more likely to vanish somewhere in the “Elephant” complex than at Walthamstow. But, you do all realise that there USED to be a set of steps down from the WC car-park to W Midland (It’s nowhere NEAR Queen’s Road) … When pat of the land was sold off for development, a condition was that the link was preserved/updated. Needless to say, the developer did nothing of the sort. Last year (I think) London Borough of Waht the F***k (LBWF) finalyy won a court action against said developer and their succesor(s) … but, of course, nothing has been done, and it is still a ridiculous journey from one station to the other. Not quite as insane as Hackney CentralH Downs, but almost as bad! Dan Hello, This is my first post on London Reconnections, which is looking very fine in its new livery. Big vision about super hubs is indeed needed, and welcome.

But I hope it’s not at the expense of obvious improvements that could be made to existing connections, such as: – reopening the high level platforms (formerly Brockley Lane Station) at Brockley to interchange between Southeastern, Southern and London Overground – including stations on the ‘new’ London Overground south London line at Brixton and Camberwell – converting Bromley North to light rail use, possibly linking to both Tramlink and DLR extensions; the former is close by at Beckenham and the latter, if extended to Catford, would be just a couple of miles away – tying together stations in close proximity better, eg. West Hampstead, Catford/Catford Bridge, to make them obvious interchanges and centres of development – creating a Central Line interchange with the London Overground east London line at Shoreditch High Street And with the Chelsney proposals, why not bring (some of?) its lines to Victoria to allow Southeastern/Southern services to extend on to it, as per Thameslink/Southeastern beyond Blackfriars, thus creating space at Victoria and new connection possibilities?

Nom de plume 21 October 2011 at 03:07 Regarding general topic of gauge restrictions and restricted platform lengths does anyone with greater engineering knowledge than myself have any views on LR55 track covered in the current edition of “the rail engineer” (page 44-45) and accessible from ? Whilst the article refers to benefits that might be applicable in Crossrail construction I can’t but wonder if other London schemes might benefit or even become financially viable utilising this technology. Greg Tingey Where can one find information regarding the works beingundertaken at Walthamstow Central. I think we’d all like to see that?

Anonymous 12 February 2012 at 11:18 Looking at the aerial photos and to ensure good connectivity between hs2, crossrail, London overground and the underground, I would propose the following: Transfer central line Ealing broadway branch to bakerloo line then from north acton build a cut and cover link to willesden junction via the old oak common site with interchange station Build new central line branch from east acton or white city interchanging with above bakerloo line route, hs2 and crossrail in the old oak common site and then taking over the Dudden hill route with new interchange stations at harlesden, neasden and cricklewood/ Brent cross. timbeau 12 February 2012 at 14:38 I can’t imagine anyone using the Ealing branch of the Central would take kindly to the long and mazy route via Queens Park! Is there actually much need to keep the Ealing branch at all post Crossrail? Ealing will have a much faster service to Paddington and many existing Central Line destinations. Connection at OOC/North Acton for destinations nearer at hand.

If West Acton still needs a service, running a North Acton – Ealing Broadway shuttle might suffice Anonymous 12 February 2012 at 19:46 I expect the best bet for the Dudding Hill Line is an Overground branch of some sort. But the northwest London light railway has proposed a DLR system on it, then taking over the Central line branch to Ealing Broadway, and even somehow on to West Ealing and the Greenford branch (soon to become a dead-end, with HS2). Transport for London objects to light-rail stopping freight traffic on the Dudding Hill line, but they might co-exist somehow, since both Old Oak Common and Brent Cross architects have at some stage proposed light rail. Lemmo Apparently TfL canvassing local council transport officials on the potential for a Hounslow-Hendon service. This would use the Dudding Hill line, it would be interesting to know more… Anonymous 13 February 2012 at 16:24 The Ealing stub on the central line will probably become redundant long-term, especially if Crossrail offers 16tph at Eailing Broadway.

All those Bakerloo services terminating at QP does seem a waste, and a short connection to take over this branch would give quicker services to some parts of NW London which are actually slow and quite difficult to do (try using the 83 bus to get to Ealing from Wembley, takes over an hours in rush-hour). It seems a pretty easy and cheap connection to do. Where the central line then goes is the big question. Don’t think NW London needs any more tube lines, certainly not radial anyway. I would prefer it follow Uxbridge road and essentially do what the West London tram was meant to but far better and without road issues. The other option is going SW and helping out Waterloo by taking a load of trains off the Windsor line. The Hounslow loop would be obvious, but would quite like the Piccdilly line to go there if they can get rid of the Uxbridge branch since it would be a shorter and cheaper connection (which prob requires the District to take over and thus loosing its own branch somewhere). Anonymous

Question: A similar question. Alphabetically, which would be the last of London's main line railway termini?
Answer: WATERLOO