AHC: Keep the London Underground as the largest RTS in the world

[Sycamore]

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to create an ATL scenario in which the London Underground is still the largest rapid transit system in the world to the present day, in at least one of these aspects:

a) Total system length,
b) Total number of stations, and
c) Annual ridership.

The POD must be after 1900, but besides that, there are no other stipulations (although nuclear war is distasteful). Are you up for the challenge?

 

[TimeMeddler]

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to create an ATL scenario in which the London Underground is still the largest rapid transit system in the world to the present day, in at least one of these aspects:

a) Total system length,
b) Total number of stations, and
c) Annual ridership.

The POD must be after 1900, but besides that, there are no other stipulations (although nuclear war is distasteful). Are you up for the challenge?

From looking at the wikipedia list of Metro systems it seems that the London Underground is already the third largest system by total system length so that's probably the easiest one to do...

1. Keep the Metropolitan line service out to Aylesbury
2. Build the Chelsea-Hackney line (Crossrail 2) in the 70s/80s
3. Start the Crossrail sooner so it's open today....

That should get you the 150km you need to overtake Shanghai, and thus London has the longest rapid transit system in the world... (?) I'm not sure what counts as London Underground and what doesn't for these purposes? Are their readily available figures from around that world that use consistent methodology?

 

[Sycamore]

From looking at the wikipedia list of Metro systems it seems that the London Underground is already the third largest system by total system length so that's probably the easiest one to do...

1. Keep the Metropolitan line service out to Aylesbury
2. Build the Chelsea-Hackney line (Crossrail 2) in the 70s/80s
3. Start the Crossrail sooner so it's open today....

That should get you the 150km you need to overtake Shanghai, and thus London has the longest rapid transit system in the world... (?) I'm not sure what counts as London Underground and what doesn't for these purposes? Are their readily available figures from around that world that use consistent methodology?

What counts as London Underground for these purposes is anything under the control of a unified regulatory body dedicated to this purpose (eg, OTL's London Underground Limited). So, for instance, in an ATL with a relatively recent POD, in which the London Overground is never established, and its lines become a part of the London Underground network instead, you'd already be 86km of the way there now IOTL.

 

[Michel Van]

on option A B Total system length and Total number of stations:

There was project to extent one of line: The Northern Heights plan in 1935
the lines north of Highgate would extends to the Northern Heights. from Mill Hill over Edgware to Brockley Hill, Elstree South and Bushey Heath with a new tube depot at Aldenham.
They had start construction, but abandon the project in 1940 with outbreak of World War 2.

This You Tube Video explain the project in detail

 

[Simon]

What counts as London Underground for these purposes is anything under the control of a unified regulatory body dedicated to this purpose (e.g. OTL's London Underground Limited). So, for instance, in an ATL with a relatively recent POD, in which the London Overground is never established, and its lines become a part of the London Underground network instead, you'd already be 86km of the way there now IOTL.

Is there any particular reason for this? Transport for London runs both London Underground and London Rail, which includes London Overground, as internal directorates. Even within that the Underground has stretches of track that run on the surface whilst Overground has large stretches which run via tunnels. Excluding surface transport like the buses, trams and Docklands light railway because it's rubbish drawing a distinction between Underground and Overground strikes me as a bit of an artificial distinction.

 

[Sycamore]

Is there any particular reason for this? Transport for London runs both London Underground and London Rail, which includes London Overground, as internal directorates. Even within that the Underground has stretches of track that run on the surface whilst Overground has large stretches which run via tunnels. Excluding surface transport like the buses, trams and Docklands light railway because it's rubbish drawing a distinction between Underground and Overground strikes me as a bit of an artificial distinction.

Hence my suggestion that eliminating this counter-intuitive distinction would probably be be the latest and easiest POD to bring this about. You add the London Overground, together with the services currently being run on the Northern City Line by Network Rail, to the London Underground, and you've already made the London Underground the largest rapid transit system in the world by total system length.

 

[Devvy]

Hence my suggestion that eliminating this counter-intuitive distinction would probably be be the latest and easiest POD to bring this about. You add the London Overground, together with the services currently being run on the Northern City Line by Network Rail, to the London Underground, and you've already made the London Underground the largest rapid transit system in the world by total system length.

- The Northern City Line used to be part of the London Underground system anyway (by virtue of the previously mentioned Northern Heights plans); so that whole plan will give several more stations and distance to the system.

- The Central Line was planned to go out to Denham on the west end, and Ongar on the east end before WWII disrupted works (same overall project as above).

- The Metropolitan Line formerly ran to Aylesbury. This one could be a little bit awkward; during the 70s/80s the Govt wanted to shut down Marylebone, divert BR into Paddington and extend the Met back to Aylesbury, but Baker Street was too busy to take the additional customers. Metropolitan Line might need to find a new cross-London route so they don't terminate at Baker Street causing congestion; options are plentiful here.

- Build the Fleet Line (latterly called Jubilee Line) in 1970s straight away as per plans; generally in to Charing Cross as per OTL then out to Docklands in some guise (several routes were considered).

- Chelsea-Hackney Line was initially considered as another Tube line; build it in the 1990s. Any other extensions will need new lines like this; there's just too much congestion on the existing system without extending lines and attracting more people, which the system wouldn't be able to cope with.

- And include London Overground; it's just as much TfL as London Underground. Overground could be extended quite a bit more; the West Anglia Lea Valley routes are in the process of being handed over to TfL anyway at the moment. Some of the Kent Loop line (around Woolwich/Bexley/Bexleyheath/Dartford) were sought by TfL, but blocked by Kent County Council. Several of the inner SWML/Waterloo services (that are OTL being sought by LO for Crossrail 2) could be ceded in.

- Crossrail has been in planning for decades; generally on the OTL route (although some other plans saw a branch to Marylebone as well). Build and bring in to TfL as well.

 

[GarethC]

- The Central Line was planned to go out to Denham on the west end, and Ongar on the east end before WWII disrupted works (same overall project as above).

The Central Line used to have a peak hours Epping-Ongar service in the 80s, IIRC.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Add the South London commuter lines to Victoria and Waterloo to the system

 

[NHBL]

no consolidation

eliminate the OTL consolidation of the various New York systems, so that New York has several different, smaller systems--problem solved with regards to New York.

 

[Resurgam]

eliminate the OTL consolidation of the various New York systems, so that New York has several different, smaller systems--problem solved with regards to New York.

You have to butterfly away the city buying out the IRT and other companies - which it always wanted to do - and get us fare-payers used to constant hikes BEFORE the MTA comes around (one mayor won partially on keeping the fare at $0.05)

 

[British Republic]

The last great expansion phase of the London Underground was in the 1930s when the London Urban Area was expanding to a large degree thanks to the rise of new suburbs on the outskrits of London (in the Home Counties) over time (sometimes the Underground themsevles where involved, the Metropoltian Railway* developed large areas of what is now North West London).

The Green Belt ultimately stopped this and this resulted in a cut-back in the extensions of the network. The biggest examples was the scrapping of the Northern Heights project and eventually cutting back the Central Line from Ongar to Epping. So one way of allowing the network to expand is to never have a Green Belt and thus have a larger London Urban Area than OTL which in turn would need addtional lines.

Another thing you are going to need is Governments investing in Londons Transport system, during the 70s and 80s for example the network was in a poor state and it took decades of investment since to address those underinvestment issues. If on the other hand you had governments willing to invest on addtional lines, you could see Crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney Line (Now Crossrail 2) being built earlier than OTL for example.

Thoughts?

*Now the Metropoltian Line

 

[British Republic]

What counts as London Underground for these purposes is anything under the control of a unified regulatory body dedicated to this purpose (eg, OTL's London Underground Limited). So, for instance, in an ATL with a relatively recent POD, in which the London Overground is never established, and its lines become a part of the London Underground network instead, you'd already be 86km of the way there now IOTL.

That would mean then the North and West London Lines become another Tube Line as well as the GOBLIN Line. The problem is that both lines have a lot of freight services running on them and they would need to be relocated (which would mean building addtional lines for those services), I say this because otherwise you cannot run the sort of frequent service expected for a Tube Line and you cannot serpate those lines from the National Rail Network otherwise.

I would assume that if they did become Tube Lines they would be using S-Stock Trains...

 

[British Republic]

Is there any particular reason for this? Transport for London runs both London Underground and London Rail, which includes London Overground, as internal directorates. Even within that the Underground has stretches of track that run on the surface whilst Overground has large stretches which run via tunnels.

The main reason is simple, the London Overground Network (and tracks) is under the control of Network Rail and considered part of the "British Rail Network" (TFL control this in relation to the Underground), TFL only manages the stations, provides the investment and controls the services.

Likewise as I have stated before the Overground Network has a lot of freight services and thus you have to have the network linked to the rest of the British Rail Network unless you build alternative routes, this also limits the frequency of services that can be provided as well.

 

[Simon]

One thing to keep in mind when making comparisons with systems such as Shanghai's is heavy rail lines. As I understand things Shanghai doesn't really have these whilst London uses them heavily, especially south of the Thames, to bring in and take out large numbers of passengers. So whilst not a part of Transport for London they are an integral part of the transportation network.

There was project to extent one of line: The Northern Heights plan in 1935.

There was also the plan to add another branch to the Piccadilly line by converting the old Great Northern Railway between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace via Highgate, here's a map of the route, that was likewise delayed thanks to WWII and then cancelled post-war due to reduced funding problems. Nowadays it's become the Parkland Walk. It would only add something like 6 kilometres to the system but every little helps. Makes you wonder how Alexandra Palace might have developed over time if it had better transport connections.

 

[Devvy]

The main reason is simple, the London Overground Network (and tracks) is under the control of Network Rail and considered part of the "British Rail Network" (TFL control this in relation to the Underground), TFL only manages the stations, provides the investment and controls the services.

Likewise as I have stated before the Overground Network has a lot of freight services and thus you have to have the network linked to the rest of the British Rail Network unless you build alternative routes, this also limits the frequency of services that can be provided as well.

Well, the OP mentioned...

What counts as London Underground for these purposes is anything under the control of a unified regulatory body dedicated to this purpose

Therefore London Overground could qualify as it is; it is managed by the same group as London Underground; unified under Transport for London. It is financially integrated with London Underground, and as far as the passenger is concerned exactly the same thing - bar the fact that Overground trains are bigger. LO adds around another 135 million passengers (2014 figures) to the yearly total, and another 111 stations (including, I think, the Lea Valley expansion).

 

[Simon]

Another suggestion would be extending the Bakerloo line south from its current terminus as Elephant & Castle to Camberwell, they apparently looked at it in 1931 and again in 1947 with the plans having an intermediate stop at either Albany Road or Walworth Road respectively. It would only add another 2.5 or so kilometres to the network but it then leaves open the opportunity of extending it further by either taking the line southwards or eastwards at some point in the future.

IIRC they're currently seriously considering extending the Bakerloo line south to Camberwell and then turning east to Lewisham, potentially also taking over the Hayes Line from there to, not unsurprisingly, Hayes. One alternative I saw suggested on an amateur site was to extend the Bakerloo line south to Camberwell but then turn south-west to Brixton before heading south and curving east to Croydon. A new branch of the Northern line would instead turn off just after Kennington to go to Camberwell before extending eastwards to Lewisham and then taking over the Hayes Line to Bromley and potentially Hayes. The lines would be

Northern Line: Kennington - Camberwell (Bakerloo) - Peckham Rye (Overground) - Nunhead - Brockley (Overground) - Lewisham (DLR) - Hither Green - Grove Park - Sundridge Park - Bromley North

Bakerloo Line: Elephant and Castle - Walworth - Camberwell (Northern) - Loughborough Junction - Brixton (Overground / Victoria) - Brixton Hill - Streatham Hill - Streatham - Norbury - Thornton Heath Pond - West Croydon (Overground) - East Croydon

They did a map of it here. IIRC it was a number of years back so I don't know how that would play with regards to passenger numbers and travel patterns nowadays, they were apparently fairly knowledgeable about these things though from what I can remember. Some of our resident rail and transport experts can weigh in here. One thing I did like about it was that it would push out the tube to the areas south of the Thames that have so far been cut out of the system and instead had to rely more on surface transport or heavy rail lines, they also tie in nicely with other lines and the Overground and Docklands Light Railway. The Bakerloo extension would add about 15 kilometres and the Northern line one roughly 16 kilometres to the network, the costs however would obviously be rather large.

 

[Devvy]

Another suggestion would be extending the Bakerloo line south from its current terminus as Elephant & Castle to Camberwell, they apparently looked at it in 1931 and again in 1947 with the plans having an intermediate stop at either Albany Road or Walworth Road respectively. It would only add another 2.5 or so kilometres to the network but it then leaves open the opportunity of extending it further by either taking the line southwards or eastwards at some point in the future.

IIRC they're currently seriously considering extending the Bakerloo line south to Camberwell and then turning east to Lewisham, potentially also taking over the Hayes Line from there to, not unsurprisingly, Hayes. One alternative I saw suggested on an amateur site was to extend the Bakerloo line south to Camberwell but then turn south-west to Brixton before heading south and curving east to Croydon. A new branch of the Northern line would instead turn off just after Kennington to go to Camberwell before extending eastwards to Lewisham and then taking over the Hayes Line to Bromley and potentially Hayes. The lines would be



They did a map of it here. IIRC it was a number of years back so I don't know how that would play with regards to passenger numbers and travel patterns nowadays, they were apparently fairly knowledgeable about these things though from what I can remember. Some of our resident rail and transport experts can weigh in here. One thing I did like about it was that it would push out the tube to the areas south of the Thames that have so far been cut out of the system and instead had to rely more on surface transport or heavy rail lines, they also tie in nicely with other lines and the Overground and Docklands Light Railway. The Bakerloo extension would add about 15 kilometres and the Northern line one roughly 16 kilometres to the network, the costs however would obviously be rather large.

Yeah, likewise, I think cost to benefit ratio is a little low. I'd forgotten about Bakerloo to Camberwell. There are a number of "nice" south London branches that the Tube could be extended to; the East London Line could easily have taken over the branch to Crystal Palace High Level station as it was a dead end (and starting not far from New Cross Gate), as well as the line between Peckham Rye and Tulse Hill - both easily maintaining separation from National Rail.

Bricklayers Arms Branch was a short stretch from the Bakerloo at E&C as well.

Doing these kind of things would simplify the national rail network as well, allowing higher frequencies on the remaining lines.

The other main thing that I ponder is whether the whole Thameslink system could have been instigated as an actual London Underground line, from say from St Albans to Orpington (allowing full separation from National Rail). In this day and age, I'd say the length of the line would call for something a bit more comfy then Underground stock, but in the 1980s when Thameslink was reinstated; maybe.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Another suggestion would be extending the Bakerloo line south from its current terminus as Elephant & Castle to Camberwell, they apparently looked at it in 1931 and again in 1947 with the plans having an intermediate stop at either Albany Road or Walworth Road respectively. It would only add another 2.5 or so kilometres to the network but it then leaves open the opportunity of extending it further by either taking the line southwards or eastwards at some point in the future.

IIRC they're currently seriously considering extending the Bakerloo line south to Camberwell and then turning east to Lewisham, potentially also taking over the Hayes Line from there to, not unsurprisingly, Hayes. One alternative I saw suggested on an amateur site was to extend the Bakerloo line south to Camberwell but then turn south-west to Brixton before heading south and curving east to Croydon. A new branch of the Northern line would instead turn off just after Kennington to go to Camberwell before extending eastwards to Lewisham and then taking over the Hayes Line to Bromley and potentially Hayes. The lines would be



They did a map of it here. IIRC it was a number of years back so I don't know how that would play with regards to passenger numbers and travel patterns nowadays, they were apparently fairly knowledgeable about these things though from what I can remember. Some of our resident rail and transport experts can weigh in here. One thing I did like about it was that it would push out the tube to the areas south of the Thames that have so far been cut out of the system and instead had to rely more on surface transport or heavy rail lines, they also tie in nicely with other lines and the Overground and Docklands Light Railway. The Bakerloo extension would add about 15 kilometres and the Northern line one roughly 16 kilometres to the network, the costs however would obviously be rather large.

I must insist on 3 new stations at places that remained bus destinations until well into the 1990's and confused the hell out of visitors to Croydon: -
1. Thornton Heath Pond: an earth-filled roundabout on the A23 for at least the last 40 years;
2. Croydon Airport: not since the 1950's!
3. Crystal Palace: burned down in 1936 - but if you mean the glorious CPFC then that's obviously at Selhurst, Thornton Heath or Norwood Junction"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some others that might be added:

-IIRC the original Act of Parliament for what became the Bushey Heath branch of the Northern Heights allowed the line to go all the way to Watford.
-Don't cut the Bakerloo Line back from Watford.
-But that would mean 3 Underground lines to Watford.
-The Metropolitan Railway tried to extent the GNCR to Waterloo after it bought the company, but couldn't get the wayleaves from the properties it ran under IIRC. Before the Northern Heights Scheme of the 1930s there were two proposals to electrify the GNR lines that the scheme would take over. First by the GNCR and then the GNR had Dick, Kerr do a feasibility study using the 4-rail DC system so its trains could run over parts of the Circle Line.
-Then there is the Wimbledon to Sutton Line. Make that part of the District Line instead of the Southern Railway. And extend the Northern Line to a terminus with the Sutton Line.