Bakerloo Line extension: Catford via Peckham is TfL's preferred route

I really don't think that is a limiting factor these days. Tunnelling has come a long way since it all started. London reconnections has a good article about new vs extended lines. One point is that if your going to dig a new one, go full size like crossrail.

But you agree the SE's high water table had been a limiting factor at the time the Bakerloo was built though? Why else would a Tube line be so short south of the Thames and have it's terminus in zone 1?

I might sound incredibly stupid asking this, but is there a reason the old stations of Camberwell and Walworth Road can't be reopened? The ones that were closed due to the first world war. Aren't the sites both on the current Thameslink line that runs to Loughborough Jcn?

I really couldnt tell you, you may be correct. Matt on here will know. But it's no longer a big factor, TBMs can cope with all sorts of conditions.

I don't think anything is going to convince me that Hayes is the best choice of Bakerloo destination. Simple, maybe, but not best. Its just too quiet down there, and a long way beyond zones 1-3 (where tubes make most sense).
Specifically, there is no secondary traffic generator on the route beyond Lewisham. For example, tunnelled via Peckham, Honor Oak, Catford and Grove Park to Bromley North (Bromley is a major traffic generator in both directions, such as at Uxbridge). Or, taking over the Greenwich line to Charlton. Lots of possible choices, but Hayes is about the worst.
I'd look to divert Hayes via a rebuilt Catford to Crofton Park and a new curve to Brockley, then run as LOROL. LOROL to Hayes makes much more sense than Bakerloo's 15min frequency and proper sized trains. Plus LOROL isn't at 24 tph yet in the core - oh, and DLR takes over Lewisham to Catford...

Having seen the options paper for this a couple of years ago, there ARE actually options on the table that include Nunhead. These are:

B4 (extended 1): Elephant - Aylesbury Estate - Peckham Rye - Nunhead - Brockley - Lewisham
B4 (extended 2): As above, but on to Blackheath
B4 (extended 3): As above, then to Catford via tube (Honor Oak) or surface (Crofton Park)

Option 'B5' has the same three options as above but goes to Peckham Rye via 'Camberwell/Denmark Hill' rather than Aylesbury Estate.

All very exciting...... but can't see this even being seriously considered in the current climate.

Is it this one?



There's a big gaping hole around Dull-wich!

It's also a near certainty that they'd never use the word Estate in a station name. Too many negative connotations.

The problem as I see it with your suggestion is that you'd really want the station running east-west at Peckham Rye in order to head out towards Brockley. I think your location for a station is quite good if only a single station was to be built, but I think the area justifies a couple, in which case I'd have one just north of the estate (Walworth?) and one just south (perhaps called Burgess Park but on Southampton Way). That way, it's just a gentle curve to reach Peckham Rye, and then you're pointing in the right direction.

Going with your Burgess Park station location though, I think it'd have to head due south from the station to near the southern end of Southampton Way before curving eastwards to run under the existing lines from Peckham Rye to Brockley.

oh, and two billion?

Hmm, not sure. I thought those stations had been built on?

Despite Ken Livingstone promising as mayor that the Bakerloo would reach SE by 2020, by the time this happens King William and his orange bride will have their free bus passes.

From London Reconnections:

Towards Catford

Purposes:
- alternative extension to Catford (and beyond) if route via Peckham favoured over route via Lewisham
- assists economic development at Central Catford, serving 2 or 3 town centres on the same railway (Camberwell / Peckham / Catford)
- potential for further extension onto Hayes Line, but arrangements for the Lewisham-Ladywell-Catford Bridge section would need to be defined
- unless the Hayes Line service were wholly replaced, there would be only limited additional train slot capacity on the main line network at Lewisham Junction and towards London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross.

Specification:
- standard tube railway characteristics as far as Catford, whether in tube or on the surface
- any joint operation of tube (West End) and main line (City) trains south of Catford Bridge is unlikely unless platform heights (and automatic train protection) were resolved – disability legislation requires level access between platform and train, but tube and main line trains have separate platform heights, so the present compromise arrangements on some lines would not be allowed again
- until a workable scheme were developed south of Catford (see issues above), it is not assumed that a Bakerloo Line via Peckham could be extended towards Hayes or Beckenham Junction
- it might be possible to widen the Catford Loop line to accommodate parallel Bakerloo tracks at surface level from east of Nunhead Junction to Catford, though this would incur disruption & environmental impact
- surface route 2.6 miles, via Nunhead and Crofton Park, terminating at the present Catford station area
- the alternative is an extension in tube, possibly non-stop to achieve fastest West End journey times from south Lewisham via Catford Interchange, or with intermediate station near Honor Oak for the Croydon line
- tube route approx 2.6 miles between Peckham Rye and Catford via Honor Oak Park
this assumes the optimum location for new Catford tube platforms to support economic development at Central Catford,
would be to locate these on an E-W alignment between the existing Catford stations and Central Catford
- approx 9 trains needed for Elephant-Catford service, via Option B4
- significant risk of overloading the existing service on the Central London Bakerloo section, requiring an increase in service towards 2 minute headways between Catford or Elephant and Paddington. However in short term new trains might be resourced from other fleet cascades.

Costs and other factors:
- total capital cost Elephant-Peckham-Catford tube route ca. £2.15-2.4bn (B4 or B5 options): £90-100m trains (excl Central London), £600-650m stations (beoynd Peckham, at Honor Oak Park, and Catford Interchange/Central Catford), £1.45-1.65bn tunnels, tracks and other works
- a Bakerloo Line to Catford could be similar to the Victoria Line at Seven Sisters/Tottenham, offering a faster direct West End service than existing main line trains (whose typical journey is 20 minutes), and complementing the bulk of main line services at Catford/Catford Bridge which serve the City.

Did you get those papers from the Southwark Rail Users Group?

Bear in mind the paper is from Lewisham council, therefore (I assume) not endorsed in any way by the folks that would actually pay for it (TfL/DfT?) or the area which most of the line would pass through (Southwark). Still - it's nice to dream, isn't it?

I’ve always understood SE London is hard to tunnel because it is based on sand (as opposed the rest of London, based largely on clay). If I’m right, that pretty much rules out the Bakerloo extension, since the infrastructure would involve huge compulsory purchases – unpopular and slow.

Since the coalition has overnight been converted into believing in infrastructure projects, something like this possibly has a better chance of success than it has (or will) for some time.

Lewisham themselves made the documents available online last year here.

London Reconnections had a more reader-friendly synopsis of the Lewisham report where they state:

A previous historic option of surfacing the line and using a pair of tracks along the four-track Elephant-Walworth-Camberwell-Loughborough Junction railway viaduct is not feasible, because of the approved Thameslink project which makes more intensive use of this railway.
Similarly, use of the former Bricklayers Arms goods railway near the Old Kent Road is no longer possible – the railway lands have been built on, while the junctions in the Bermondsey area are now being redesigned for use by Thameslink services.

There were some suggestions that the Bakerloo should surface near Elephant, and go down the mainline to Lewisham, via Loughborough Junction, Peckham Rye and Nunhead, but it's a no-go.

Basically, from Loughborough Junction to Peckham, this is one of the two core mainlines for South Eastern trains on the Kent to Victoria line. After Thameslink 2000 it, together with the remaining stretch between Loughborough junction and Elephant, will also be the mainline for Kent to Blackfriars trains. Its far too busy to take a tube line as well.

So, at least as far as Nunhead, any Bakerloo extension must be in tube. And if its going to be in tube it might as well take a more direct route, serving more central parts of various areas.

PS on the DLR thread I mentioned the new issue of Modern Railways and a feature on TfL's current thinking. As well as the official route options for Crossrail 2 just announced, they are saying of the Bakerloo that...

"Five options are considered for inner London – one to Charlton, one to Canary Wharf, and three to Lewisham."

Can you believe TfL's now talking about a poss West London extension or branch-off of the Bakerloo to serve an Old Oak Common interchange with Crossrail/HS2?

November Transport Plenary
Boris Johnson (Chair, TfL) and Peter Hendy (Commissioner, TfL)

Old Oak Common
Question No: 156 / 2011

Please detail the transport enhancements for Old Oak Common that you have asked the Department for Transport to include in the core HS2 scheme to ensure it is accessible to the wider area.

Written answer from the Chair and the Commissioner

Old Oak Common is currently a largely "land locked" site with very limited access by road. Whilst lots of railway lines pass through the site, none of the services running on these lines currently stop at Old Oak Common. Locating a major new rail interchange at this point would require connections to the wider transport network to allow people to access the network and to help realise the wider economic benefits of HS2 for the local area and across outer London.

There are a number of options for achieving this, including those which are outlined in the Mayor’s response to the DfT’s HS2 public consultation. Options include connecting the station at Old Oak Common to the nearby London Overground network to allow better orbital connectivity from south, west and north London and connecting a branch of the Bakerloo line from Queen’s Park to serve the new interchange.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council also have ambitious plans to regenerate the area, making the most of the opportunity provided by HS2. Whilst we are supportive in principle of the regeneration potential of the site, any new construction must be mindful of the operation and implementation of the committed Crossrail depot.

TfL is continuing to work with HS2 Ltd on these issues.

How weird is that when it's not mentioned in the options TfL issued a while ago...

Flaming ridiculous! Especially as the Bakerloo SE extension has been 'on the cards' for almost 100 years!

Look how close they came to building it in a previous post-war austerity period. The map dates from 1949.





More here.

Yes, the report for Lewisham mentioned all those. The Charlton branch would go via Canada Water for instance, and the Canary Wharf branch via Old Kent Road and Surrey Quays. More detail in the pdf attached.

They should rebuild the disused 'Thameslink' stations of Walworth Road and Cambwerwell but underground (the original surface stations have housing on them). Walworth is the only area of London that doesn't have a station within its postcode (SE17).

re talk of Victoria extension on this thread - the London authorities have always envisaged it going via Streatham as the pollution density is far greater than Dulwich.

A senior Transport for London official has told a City Hall committee that plans to extend the Bakerloo line south of Elephant & Castle are "not high up the priority list" despite the idea being mentioned in the Mayor's official transport strategy.

"The priority for TfL is to finish the upgrades that we've got at present first, and then any further extensions such as the Bakerloo, unless there are opportunities to develop further extensions, such as the Northern line, because there's a way of paying for them," said Michelle Dix, TfL's managing director for planning, during a meeting of the London Assembly's transport committee on Tuesday morning.

In September Boris Johnson said he was "supportive of the southward extension of the Bakerloo line and excited about the opportunities this prospect offers residents and businesses in south east London," but refused to commit to undertaking detailed development work.

Last month James Barber, Southwark Lib Dem councillor for Dulwich, called for Lambeth and Southwark councils to work together on a Bakerloo line extension project with the cleared Heygate Estate land used as a base for the construction works.

Full story at the SE1 community website here.