In May last year, TfL and Battersea Site owners Treasury Holdings undertook a public consultation aimed at establishing which of four Northern Line extension proposals should be taken forward by the developers (you can find all the proposed options here). Today, the two bodies have announced that a final likely route has been chosen and they are now ready to begin the final stage of the consultation process - a public consultation on that specific option.
It appears that the route chosen was option 2 in the proposal. To summarise, this was Kennington - Battersea Power Station via South Nine Elms and involves a 3km tunnel from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with a mid-station in south Nine Elms (see map below).
This new public consultation will run from today until Friday 17 June, with leaflets to be distributed to local residents (if any LR readers receive one we would obviously be interested in seeing it) and a number of public exhibitions on the dates below:
- Wednesday 18 May and Monday 6 June from 12pm to 8pm at the Acquire Arts Gallery, 155 Battersea Park Road, London SW8 4BU
- Friday 20 and Saturday 21 May from 10am to 6pm at The Long Room, The KIA Oval, Kennington, London SE11 5SS
- Thursday 26 and Friday 27 May from 10am to 6pm at Sainsbury’s Nine Elms, 62 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2LF
A Question of Cost
The elephant in the room of course with any Battersea Extension proposal is financing. TfL have always made clear that whilst they support an extension, they cannot commit any funding to it. Tube extensions obviously don't come cheap and although costs are not yet available it seems likely that the Battersea Extension would be in the £350m or above range. In that light, the single-developer supported model for private financing that London has so far seen in West London with Westfield or over in Woolwich with Berkley Homes (for the Crossrail station box there) seems unlikely. Indeed, developers Treasury Holdings/REO would likely not even be able to support such a cost even if they wanted to - they were hit heavily by the recession both here and in Ireland (from whence they originate) and this was a major factor in the lack of movement on the Battersea Project towards the end of last year.
We have covered in some detail before where all this probably leaves the extension in terms of finance. In summary, it seems likely that any funding cost is likely to be met by a combination of the three fund-raising options below:
- Developer Contributions from REO
- Other Developer Contributions in the area which would otherwise have gone to Crossrail
- A Tax Increment Funding scheme put together by Wandsworth Council
The developer contributions from REO obviously needs little explaination. The sitution with regards to contributions from other developers, however, is slightly more complex, and is the result of Wandsworth having kept their eye on the "long game" when it came to large-scale transport funding for some time.
The first signs of this came back in 2009, when Wandsworth Council questioned the distribution of transport contributions raised in relation to Make's Vauxhall Tower. To provide some background, councils can demand S106 contributions from developers in relation to new projects with the money raised being used to improve transport links in the area (the idea being that this means new developments contribute to improving the transport links in areas where they are increasing the transport needs). Even though Make's tower fell within Lambeth's beat, Wandworth objected to the amount of money from that project that got swept into the general pot for Crossrail rather than for locally targetted works.
Wandsworth's words were obviously written with half an eye on their home turf. With both the potential Battersea site and the new US Embassy both falling within the Borough's borders (and more specifically within its designated Nine Elms development area), the Council was clearly determined not to see the majority of any transport contributions from those two projects syphoned off to Crossrail under the Mayor's London Plan (the "Crossrail Levy" - a kind of London-wide S106).
It was an issue the Council continued to press on and, in October 2009, the Mayor's office confirmed that supplementary guidance to the London Plan on Crossrail contributions would be issued. This indicated that any office development in Vauxhall and Nine Elms would be exempted from the Crossrail Levy, with any contributions sought from all new developments available to be used as funding for any proposed Northern Line Extension.
Objectively speaking, it seems likely that Wandsworth's victory here was as much a political one as one based on common sense. Wandsworth's very vocal objections were raised at a time when there was growing discomfort in various Boroughs over the Crossrail Levy (particularly those not set to benefit directly from the scheme) and when Crossrail's gestation was at a critical and fragile point. Thus this NLE extension clause was likely aimed as much at quickly shutting up a vocal Borough around which others might rally as anything else.
Nonetheless, it was a major victory for Wandsworth and as a result it means that the full value of any contributions raised not just from REO but also from other developments in the area will be available for the NLE pot.
The final funding source mentioned above is Tax Increment Funding (TIF). Again, this is a topic we have covered before (more information for those interested here). TIF is a funding model that has traditionally been more common in the US than it has here. It relies on the fact that most large-scale infrastructure projects (particularly transport ones) lead to a measurable increase in tax revenue within a given area when they are completed (in this case, that would be the London Borough of Wandsworth). This is the "tax increment" and - the theory goes - if you can accurately estimate what this increase is likely to be, then there is nothing to stop you borrowing the money to pay for said infrastructure project and financing the loan via that future tax revenue increase.
In a nutshell, therefore, Wandsworth would take out a loan to cover any contributions it needed to make to the NLE. The NLE (and associated developments) would, upon completition, lead to a boost in the Borough's taxes and that increase would be used to pay off the loan Wandsworth had taken.
Up until recently, there had been no framework in place at a UK Government level for Boroughs who wished to look into using TIF to fund projects, but recently the Goverment's stance on TIF has become far more positive, and this now seems likely to emerge. Given that Wandsworth have again been one of the Borough's most vocal about developing said framework, therefore, it seems highly likely that we will see it in some form on the NLE.
Overall then, the Northern Line Extension to Battersea has crept forward again. It is a slow process and it seems unlikely that we'd see a Transport and Works Act Order submission before the Autumn rather than the "Spring" the Treasury Holdings site still optimistically suggests, but it is progress nonetheless. Should that submission take place, and going on previously indicated work timescales, then an extended Northern Line by 2018 is not entirely out of the question.
I'm a local resident and broadly supportive of the move, but TfL have an upward struggle to convince many residents of the benefit of this.
ReplyDeleteLocal civic organisations in Vauxhall are rolling out the "this white elephant does nothing to relieve congestion at Vauxhall station" line.
TfL need to find an easy way to explain to residents that by building the new line, you'll have fewer people travelling up Wandsworth Road and Nine Elms Lane to use Vauxhall station, thereby freeing up capacity.
Are there detailed route maps available yet? I'd be quite keen to see exactly how far away from my street the tunnels will be.
Why can't they just extend the Waterloo & City instead?
ReplyDeleteI have no great issue with the Northern line extension (and I use the Northern each day). Not going via Vauxhall will be seen as a big mistake by future generations, although the reasons why make sense now. (I'd prefer a route via Vauxhall but with passive provision for a station until the Victoria has its capacity relieved by future new lines)
ReplyDeleteI'm more interested by the exact setup at the power station for future extension. Many have assumed that this is the first stage of going to Clapham Junction (and maybe beyond). I simply cannot see that, as the traffic levels from CJ would swamp the power station and the Northern line generally. Yet, if this does become a large development with office space, there will need to be better access from other directions. So, if not CJ, then where?
My proposal is to take the line to Shepherds Bush - route map. (Battersea, Chelsea, Fulham Road, Earls Court, Olympia, Shepherds Bush)
This provides access from the Central/District/Piccadilly to Battersea/NineElms, provides another route to the city from the West (backup for when other lines are broken), provides the Chelsea station (allowing Crossrail 2 to NOT go via Chelsea), serves a large hospital, replaces the Olympia shuttle, links to Westfield and has to potential to extend to Old Oak Common for HS2 (if that happens).
I know, I know, it looks like a weird route at first. But its exactly like the Jubilee via Canary Wharf heading back North to Stratford. And that had a key benefit of bi-directional commuting, enhancing the cost-benefit-analysis. Once you remove Clapham Junction for practical reasons, I believe this is the obvious route choice.
And Clapham Junction? Well Crossrail 2 obviously should go via there - nobody is ever going to change at Wimbledon for a slow round the houses crossrail train via Putney and Chelsea! Heck, if Battersea power station was successful enough, it could have a station on Crossrail 2 between CJ and Victoria!
@George
ReplyDeleteThat's been discussed ad nauseam. Essentially it's down to cost and capacity:
- Waterloo and City line is at peak capacity already. Queues back up at Waterloo every day, extending the line means even less capacity for people to board at Waterloo.
- Waterloo and City line trains have 4 cars, Northen line trains have 6. If you wanted to extend W&C line trains, you'd have to undertake significant civil engineering projects, especially at Bank station, as there isn't obvious space at either end of the platform for a 40m extension.
- Extending the line, even if you keep 4 car trains, means that you need more trains. That means that you need more depot space, as there isn't spare capacity at Waterloo. A new depot would add significantly to the cost, and again, there's nowhere obvious to put it.
- The Northern Line extension is two miles long. W&C would be 2.5 miles. Longer tunnels = more cost, and for a lower capacity, 4-car service (without significant extra investment).
George: extending the Waterloo and City line wouldn't make as much sense in the context of the development area as a whole.
ReplyDeleteLeaving aside the practicalities or otherwise of a drain extension at the Waterloo end, a Northern line extension provides direct or single-change tube journeys to far more destinations than would a Waterloo and City line one. I'm thinking particularly of access to the northern half of the Victoria line (for King's Cross St Pancras), but also access to the West End. Bank would be a simple change at Kennington.
There are also the issues of the W&C's relative isolation and lengthy change times at Waterloo, and the benefits inherent in keeping the W&C simple and contained. And that's before the additional operational flexibility offered by the extension of the Northern line at Kennington with the retention of the Kennington loop.
Added to which, would an extension to Battersea provide sufficient justification for the cost of running the W&C on a full-hours timetable, every day? In which case, would a part-time tube line be attractive to developers or potential residents?
"not entirely unlikely that we may not be looking at an extended Northern Line by 2018"...
ReplyDeleteTriple negative? :P
@anonymous
ReplyDeletewell spotted!
Changed the last line.
@Mark
not seen any truly detailed maps yet. Hoping to track down some soon though and if anyone sees anything useful at the exhibition it would be nice to have a copy or photo.
Just to pick up on a few comments wrt a W&C extension.
ReplyDeleteThe current option passes very close to Oval Station If a W&C extension instead was considered connections for further north could be achieved by a cross platform interchange here. The line could potentially be fast from Waterloo.
It wouldn't become swamped either by being extended to Clapham Junction. In fact it would only work if extended there as most people using it at the moment pass through the Junction anyway. The savy ones would change there instead of Waterloo in order to get a seat, despite an increase in journey time. In fact it could reduce crowding a bit at Waterloo station.
As for a depot, a single track link to the Bakerloo, as mooted many decades previously, would enable the use of London Road depot.
As an aside though, Shepherds Bush has been suggested as an eventual destination. I'd just bite the bullet and put it to CJ. Once built it'll have to last for centuries; may aswell give it one good connection if Vauxhall is out of the picture. I'd plumb it into East Putney after that, taking over the NR spur there. By this time Chelney/XR2 would probably have been built with the depot at Wimbledon Park being dedicated. There'd be little need for NR trains to run over this section then so the spur wouldn't be that useful.
It's great that everyone chips in with other route suggestions, but essentially what the developer has done is choose a simple and (relatively) cheap route option - i.e. an achievable one that does not introduce myriad other complications and requirements for substantial government funding.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I daresay even this option might need some TFL cash to go through. . .
I so look forward to a through train from Tooting Broadway to Tottenham Court Road......
ReplyDeleteWill the extension be used as an excuse to split the Northern Line at the north end too?
Trivial question: What will be the name of the new line when the Northern splits in two? And which northern branch will be matched with which southern branch
ReplyDeleteWe will have:
Northern1: Morden -> Edgware or High Barnet via Bank
Northern2: Battersea Station -> Edgware or High Barnet via Charing Cross
Which line would have more right to keep the Northern name?
(n.b. I haven't mentioned Mill Hill East - The final configuration would be two straightforward branch-free and crossover-free lines, EXCEPT for the Mill Hill East bit coming off the High Barnet branch).
People who ask about extending the W&C need to look at this map:
ReplyDeletehttp://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-london/index.php
Notice how the W&C bends round and actually runs west to east coming into Waterloo, which is not at all what you would expect from looking at the tube map!
So, not only is it nearly impossible to extend it, isn't even pointing in the right direction to go south west.
My understanding is that the northern part of the Northern Line won't be split, i.e. trains from both Edgware and High Barnet will both go via West End and City, but that all West End trains go to Battersea and City trains go to Morden.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, will this require more trains than the Northern Line currently has, or is there enough slack?
I understand that the number of trains will increase from 20 to 28 on the Charing Cross branch when they do the partial split.
ReplyDeleteIf they do split, the City branch has to go to Morden because of the layout of Kennington - the loop can't be reached from the City branch. And that means the CX branch has to go to Edgware, as there is no depot on the High Barnet Branch.
ReplyDeleteThe Northern Line was, I think, so called as a contraction of the Northern Heights, which was the MHE/High Barnet/Alexandra Palace side. But I have also seen suggestions that the line more closely associated with the Victoria Line (which is the City and Morden branch, with cross platform interchanges at Euston and Kennington) could be called the Albert Line
Mad scheme! I thought we were supposed to be in a recession? Seems like an expensive white elephant to extend the tube to, er, nowhere in particular. No long-term benefits, just a mad scheme to suit a property developer. Extend the tube somewhere where it's needed like Camberwell, not to Battersea Disneyland!
ReplyDeletetimbeau @ 22:24
ReplyDeleteNo depot on the High Barnet branch? You mean apart from the ones at Highgate and High Barnet?
I don't see the problem with onward extension to Clapham Junction ("Cludge"), it's going to be a much slower route between there and Waterloo than the main line, so it's not that attractive, especially for city-bound commuters who'd have to change again at Kennington anyway. Even West End commuters have a better option at Vauxhall if they want to grab the tube early.
ReplyDeleteWhat it will do is give people in the local area more options - a link to change for mainlines heading North or East as well as South and West. And yes, it will take some traffic away from Waterloo, but it'll be limited, and it isn't a bad thing.
The Victoria & Picc can cope with Finsbury Park, The Central and Jubilee can cope with Stratford - I reckon the Northern can cope with Clapham Junction too.
I understand that some maintenance tasks can only be done by Golders or Morden, and Highgate is too small to handle enough trains to serve the whole High Barnet- Kennington line on its own.
ReplyDeleteHigh Barnet only has sidings.
I expect that a common pool of trains would be used for both parts of a split Northern Line. The physical connections will remain for stock movements and engineering.
ReplyDeleteWhy reduce flexibility? This would be the same as Circle, District, H&C sharing stock.
Very interesting
ReplyDeleteOn W&C why not create two loops at each end.
At the North a one way loop covering Liverpool Street and Shoreditch?
At the South an extension with a new station under Waterloo (to extend platform to 6 car and a loop taking in Victoria (which would create a faster commutable link from Victoria to Bank and Liverpool Street)
The existing Station at Waterloo can become part of the depot allowing additional space (Perhaps dug out a bit)
The loop would create a continuous 6 car service which would be more reliable and increased frequencies on the current service - additionally single tunnels presumably cost less than double tunnels and the signalling would be less complex.
I've just learnt there's a website for this proposal, including downloadable consultation document and opportunity for on-line response:
ReplyDeleteDamn - url has gone missing! (probably my office IT security measures)
ReplyDeletewww[dot]northernlineextension[dot]com
I hope that this time,should this scheme go ahead,there are ways to ensure the developers actually pay the contribution they agree to,rather than let them wriggle out leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill....
ReplyDeleteIs it just overrun tunnels at Battersea Power Station then? Surely that's going to create that same kind of turnaround problems that already plague Brixton?
ReplyDelete@ Mikey C:
ReplyDeleteTfL have confirmed that they will need 19 new trains from about 2016.
@ T33: There's a bunch of stuff in the way at Bank.
ReplyDeleteAnon @12:32 - would a three platform terminus solve the problem, as at either end of the Jubilee Line?
ReplyDeleteDoes this not provide an opportunity to improve the connections between the stations/lines at Battersea? The proposal creates yet another station, and still poor links between.
ReplyDelete@Anon 10 May 2011 15:07
ReplyDeleteThis is a developer-led scheme. Why would the developer be interested in improving connectivity between different modes of transport? It doesn't benefit their developments.
If a more joined-up scheme is desired with better links and more benefits, then TfL need to chip in with some moolah.
@A Nonn - thanks for the link. Interesting to see the ventilation shaft proposed for the middle of Kennington Park. That's a surefire way to generate local hostility if ever I saw one.
The existing layout of the W&C at Waterloo is largley irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAn extension could diverge where the line curves south east to continue under the international platforms, as I illustrate here.
Just look at the potential local travel opportunities that could be possible with some vision, not to mention that a proper local provision enables Vauxhall and Queenstown Road stations to close, adding capacity on the congested section into Waterloo.
Failing a W&C extension now, the the line from Vauxhall Station could still be built as-is, and then you have the option of the section through Lambeth later, with the link to the Northern relegated to a stock connection link a-la the loops at Kings Cross to the Piccadilly Line.
Why is the extension not being built as a branch of the Victoria line from Vauxhall? It could even be built as a loop back to Victoria so that no trains terminate at Battersea but head straight back towards Walthamstow (double track two way loop of course).
ReplyDeleteThe map shows Nine Elms station as about a half mile walk from Vauxhall station. There are a few Underground stations where interchange feels like that anyway, so better make it one station!
@KG
ReplyDeleteThe Victoria Line is overloaded as it is, extending it will just lead to more people trying to cram on to it.
There is therefore no possibility of an extension to the Victoria Line at either end until after something else comes along to relieve it of some of the traffic through the central area. Currently the most likely candidate for giving this relief is Chelney/Crossrail 2.
If you follow the link that A Nonn provided http://www.northernlineextention.com
ReplyDeletethere's a questionnaire where they ask for suggestions for the station names.
oops! The link is here
ReplyDelete"The existing layout of the W&C at Waterloo is largley irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAn extension could diverge where the line curves south east to continue under the international platforms, as I illustrate here."
Why are people so obsessed with extending the W&C? It it simply isn't built in an extendible way.
What you propose would mean reboring the whole tunnel to fit the full size trains used by FCC and then rebuilding Bank with completely new platforms to allow through trains. Even Waterloo would need a fairly complete rebuild due to the larger trains. This isn't an extension. This is starting again from scratch!
There is no point in having your fork in the line. If the tunnels need to be rebored anyway then you might as well do it properly and go via Waterloo on a new and better alignment. Otherwise you half the frequency on your two southern branches as the northern section becomes a bottleneck.
The revised plan would be something like this:
Extend south from the FCC line at Moorgate using the same full size tunnels. (Try not to collide with Crossrail on the way through.) Build brand new through platforms at Bank abandoning the current W&C platforms. Rebore the existing line of the W&C under Blackfriars. Build new platforms at Blackfriars (as money is clearly no object). Continue to Waterloo on a new alignment so as to leave it facing vaguely south west. Brand new through platforms are needed at Waterloo, obviously. Continue towards Clapham Junction in tunnel with at least one or two new stations as suggested, surface wherever there is scope to do so and link to the surface lines heading south and/or west. Routes could be anything you like. E.g. Woking to Finsbury Park (with some continuing further north).
It is not a completely crazy idea, as another National Rail route through London would be very useful, but it is eyewateringly expensive. Notice how the existing W&C doesn't actually save you a penny on the cost because it involves reboring and rebuilding every last bit of the whole W&C line as if it wasn't there in the first place! Notice also how you have to shut the W&C for a few years to build it.
The obvious response is to say "sod that" and build a completely different new SW-NE line instead using the money (assuming such money exists at all) leaving the W&C as it is and accepting that it will never do more than it was originally built to do.
Extending the Northern Line looks like a much more realistic option in the medium term. It is in the right place. It is facing in the right direction. It already has through platforms that can be extended from.
@Anon
ReplyDeleteWhoa whoa whoa....why does the line need to take mainline trains?
Tube stock is fine, no need for reboring. You could quite happily build the entire southern extension without affecting the current W&C until you needed to break through at Waterloo. At which point you'd have everything ready on the extension, so the line would only be closed during the alterations at Waterloo itself for the physical links and construction of the new platforms. You could easily operate short trains over the extended line until something was done about extending the Bank end.
The existing depot would be next to useless with longer trains, so there wouldn't be a branch (I just included it for completeness to show the current line), you'd just seal over that section of line unless there was any use in having the combined depot and platform areas as turnback sidings of some sort, as something like that would be able to accommodate longer trains for ECS uses, though one questions the utility of it so close to the (new) depot at London Road.
Anyway, if this new extension was built properly to include Vauxhall Station then handing it over to the W&C in the future would just be a case of linking from Vauxhall to Waterloo via Lambeth, which would also provide access to London Road depot.
...but as we've established, the W&C isn't on the cards, the Northern is...so lets just look at that map of mine from Vauxhall south, as was the intent of sharing it.
Thoughts on the station location suggestions?
Will TfL safeguard the routes of potential extension, e.g. to Clapham Junction?
ReplyDeleteAnd might this route conflict with the safeguarded Crossrail 2 spur from Victoria to Battersea Park, apparently for stabling and access to a tunneling site?
I understand the Northern Line extension is is a developer-led scheme, but the Battersea area offers such good potential for extension on to a number of routes, using existing infrastructure around Stewarts Lane. Could the Northern extension not have used any of these, or for that matter Crossrail 2?
"Whoa whoa whoa....why does the line need to take mainline trains?"
ReplyDeleteAh, I see. So you propose running tube trains on the former Northern City Line again? That hadn't occurred to me. It would require reinstalling a 4th rail (although maybe it wouldn't need any voltage on it). Would that be as well as, or instead of, FCC's trains?
If it is as well as FCC then you get a nasty voltage compromise and also hit problems with the difference in platform height appropriate to the two sizes of trains, which is a disabled access issue. If it is instead of FCC then you could raise the trackbed when you put the 4th rail in but I doubt the FCC passengers would be overjoyed to see their line taken away and closed for extensive conversion work only to gain a permanent need to change at Finsbury Park.
There might also be an issue of safety. Running tube trains in oversize tunnels exacerbated the effects of the 1975 Moorgate crash. I don't know if that was a special case and it would be safe under other circumstances.
"Tube stock is fine, no need for reboring."
Well you are still reboring more than you might think. Any extension north from Bank has to be rebored right through Bank, with new platforms, and the real cost is in those new stations. By the time you have built new platforms at both Waterloo and Bank you might as well have spent a bit extra to rebore the lot to full NR size.
There is a lot more capacity and flexibility in a National Rail line that can continue further north and south/west than in a shuttle between Clapham Junction and Finsbury Park. It also gets rid of the need for an expensive depot under London because you can use depots outside London instead.
"The existing depot would be next to useless with longer trains, so there wouldn't be a branch (I just included it for completeness to show the current line),"
Ah. Yes. Sorry. I misread your diagram. I didn't notice that you were proposing a replacement Waterloo station on your new route making the branch redundant and more or less the same as my version of it apart from the tunnel size.
It would be very interesting to know how much such a line would cost, either as a tube or an NR line, and to compare that with a completely new line. My guess is that there is less difference than you might think.
@Anon 20:55
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know there is no technical reason why new tube gauge stock could not be built to run on third rail (I think the original CSLR or CLR locomotives used three rails, but I'm not certain). After all any extension to the W&C would require new trains anyway. Everything else you say is correct though.
@mr_jrt
If you want a cost effective route that runs between Waterloo and Bank but with additional stations at both ends then you might as well just build a new line. If you leave the present W&C as is you effectively get double the capacity on this bit of your new line for free.
I've said before that one of the main reasons that the W&C has never been extended over the years, indeed to my knowledge there's never been any serious proposals to do so, is that it just isn't practical.
The reason I prefer using the W&C is down to the fact that space underground isn't unlimited. The W&C has a corridor through the maze of sewers, ducts, other tube tunnels, cables, foundations, etc already.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Metropolitan Railway's proposal to link it to their GN&C was fairly serious (let's not forget the tunnelling shield still in place at Moorgate), but nationalisation intervened, (much as it did with the Met's intended extension of the Watford branch).
As for Finsbury Park...things will be a bit different once Thameslink comes into operation. Moorgate is only served due to capacity issues at Kings Cross caused by the abandonment of the curves to the widened lines. We'll see how much ECML capacity gets diverted into the Thameslink core. Moorgate may see a worse service, or an indeed increased one if they manage the upgrade of the freight lines north of Finsbury Park.
That aside, there wouldn't necessarily be a need to interchange, as under my proposal the near Hertford Loop would still be served by tube stock via Highgate down to Moorgate, with Haringey et al. just served by the services from Potters Bar.
As for the tunnel size, newer tunnels are larger to enable a emergency walkway (and help with air pressure), so I don't think this is such a problem.
Chris M
ReplyDeleteNot only the CSLR and the CLR, but also the "Drain" were originally three-rail - centre rail in the latter cases, but off-centre for the CSLR to avoid fouling the drawgear.
They were converted to LU standard in 1924, 1940 and 1993 respectively (the Drain having been converted to SR 3rd rail in 1940)
The GN&CR was originally a 4-rail system with both rails outboard until converted in the 1940s as part of the "Northern Heights" scheme, and then convrted in 1975 to BR standard 3rd rail.
So only the Yerkes tubes and the post-war ones have always used four rails.
Tinbeau - not quite.
ReplyDeleteI understood that the Circle/Met/District always had the "usual" 4-rail system
Greg - for the first 40 years or so they weren,t electrified at all, but if by "always" you mean they never had anything else, you are correct: the surface lines were electrified on the four rail system also adopted for the Yerkes tubes.
ReplyDeleteBut Chris was talking about tube gauge, so I didn't mention the SSL lines. (And, yes, I know the GN&C is built to main line gauge, but when it used tube stock it was 4-rail)
I hope the extension goes ahead, although, it makes more sense to extend the line the whole hog to Clapham Junction. From there, who knows where else in South West London? I think it should go towards Wimbledon or Sutton via the District line, as the trains are empty after Waterloo.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this will probably lead to the Northern line splitting, with probably Edgware-Charing X-Battersea and High Barnet/Mill Hill East-Bank-Morden. A name for the former could be the Charing line because it runs under Charing Cross Road, and the latter the (City and) Southern line.