WI - Expanded London Underground

[Masked Grizzly]

With the right PODs up to the present day, what-if the London Underground (plus Overground, Crossrail) were expanded in the following manner without a restrictive Metropolitan Green Belt and alternate completed London Ringways network (along with potential boring out of smaller deep-level tube lines)?

(Wish there was a way to create an ATL Underground London Map..)

Existing Lines:

• Central Line – Extends to Uxbridge via West Ruislip branch with stops at Harefield Road and Denham, while terminating at Ongar (with North Weald Airport becoming Epping International Airport and taking over from Stanstead). Includes stations at Park Royal, Shoreditch High-street with an extension from Ealing Broadway to South Ealing as well as from Grange Hill to Ongar via Debden plus a new station north of Chigwell between Grange Hill and Debden. With part of the Woodford to Hainault branch (up to Grange Hill) being transferred to the Victoria line.
• District Line - The final stops on the Main Branch of the District Line are Richmond and Chafford Hundred (latter from Upminster via Ockendon). The former Wimbledon to Edgeware Road branch meanwhile was split off to form the Wimbleware Line, while the ATL expanded Waterloo & City Line took over from the former Ealing Broadway branch up to Chiswick Park along with Kensington Olympia station.
• Northern Line – The alternate Edgware branch of the Northern Line, which kept the name after being extended to Watford Junction (via Bushey) and now goes from Watford Junction to Earl’s Court with notable new stops being at Watford Junction, Bushey, Bushey Heath, Elstree, Brockley Hill, Nine Elms, Battersea, Clapham Junction, Imperial Wharf, Chelsea / King’s Road and Earl’s Court.
• Metropolitan Line – Extends to Watford Junction via Croxley Rail Link as well as to Canary Wharf from Aldgate, Tobacco Dock and Limehouse (latter inspired by decade old cancelled Metronet proposal for Aldgate-Canary Wharf Tube Link).
• Victoria Line – A southern loop exists from Brixton, calling at Herne Hill, West Norwood, Streatham Common and Streatham Hill. While terminating at Grange Hill from Walthamstow Central via Wood Street, Woodford, Roding Valley and Chigwell.
• Hammersmith and City Line – terminates at Woodford from East Ham (instead of Barking as in OTL) via Ilford, Gants Hill and Clayhall.
  
• Waterloo and City Line – extends to Ealing Broadway from Waterloo via Ealing Common, Acton Town, Chiswick Park, Emlyn Road, Hammersmith (Circle / Hammersmith & City), Kensington Olympia, High Street Kensington, Royal Albert Hall, Knightsbridge, Victoria and Millbank (vicinity of Horseferry Road) as well as to Hadley Wood from Bank via Moorgate, Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Stroud Green, Crouch End, Highgate, Cranley Gardens, Muswell Hill, Alexandra Place, New Southgate, Oakleight Park and New Barnet (similar to the Northern City Line from Moorgate to Alexandra Place).
• Bakerloo Line – extension exists from Elephant & Castle to Hayes via Lewisham, stopping at Burgess Park, Old Kent Road, New Cross, Lewisham, Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham, New Beckenham, Clock House, Elmers End and West Wickham. With another extension from Elephant & Castle to Beckenham Junction via Walworth, Camberwell, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, West Norwood, Gipsy Hill, Crystal Palace and Birkbeck.
• Jubilee Line – Extends to Aldenham via Stanmore (the former was redeveloped from the former Site of Aldenham Bus Works into a New Town) and includes interchange at West Hampstead station combining the 3 West Hampstead stations into one complex.
• Docklands Light Railway / DLR – Southern branch terminates at Forest Hill via Catford or Bromley North via Grove Park while the Eastern branch terminates at Dagenham Dock. Along with a connection between Limehouse and Devons road stations that travels alongside Limehouse Cut with stops at Burdett Road that is later expanded to another branch terminating at Lothbury via London Liverpool Street station and Stratford International with a stop at Vallance Road (near Selby Street) before connecting at Limehouse
• Overground Line – As OTL (plus proposed extensions including stations at Leytonstone, Junction Road, Barking Riverside, Rainham, Purfleet on the Golders Green (via Gospel Oak) to Chafford Hundred Lakeside branch as well as at Hampstead on the North London branch) along with an extension of the Lea Valley branch from Cheshunt to Epping International Airport (aka North Weald Airport)
• Crossrail 1 / Elizabeth Line – As OTL (plus proposed extensions including stations at London City Airport aka Silvertown, Ladbroke Grove / Portobello Central and Old Oak Common as well as extension from Abbey Wood to Gravesend) along with a station at Mile End Park.
• Piccadilly Line - Terminates at Slough from Heathrow Terminal 5 via Sunnymeads and Datchet
  
• Circle Line - Unchanged

Alternate Lines:

• Wimbleware Line – Formerly the Wimbledon to Edgeware Road branch of the District Line, it was later extended from Edgeware Road to Newbury Park via Marble Arch, Green Park, Charing Cross, Aldwych-Strand, Ludgate Circus / Thameslink, Fenchurch Street, Wapping, Millwall, North Greenwich, London City Airport, Beckton, Barking and Ilford.
• Barden Line – The name of the alternate High Barnet to Morden via Bank Branch of the alternate Northern Line that was split off to form a separate line (and extended to Elstree & Borehamwood).
• Mayfair Line – Hammersmith to Enfield Town via Lillie Road, Fulham Broadway, Imperial Wharf, Chelsea Embankment, King’s Road, Belgravia, Mayfair, Soho, Charing Cross, Aldwych-Strand, Ludgate Circus / City Thameslink, Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street, Aldgate, Aldgate East, Brick Lane, Shoreditch High Street, Haggerston, Dalston Kingsland, Stoke Newington, Stamford Hill, Seven Sisters, Northumberland Park, Angel Road, Edmonton Green and Bush Hill Park or to Loughton from Edmonton Green via Highams Park and Chingford.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

Fantastic idea and intriguing knowledge!!!! I love London.

Anyone comment because I do know what the effects would be. Apart from maybe additional lines to transport more people which creates better infrastructure.

 

[WILDGEESE]

Would putting all the Netwoerk SouthEast rail lines underground help as well?

Just an idead.

Regards filers.

 

[Lucas]

I Don´t think is a viable, but is there a way to transform the small tunnels for standard size tunnels. This could permit trains more longer and even create some new service, like a Overground trains use the Tube underground lines, and can even unify the lines into a single system.

 

[RyanF]

This might be of interest, drawn up during Livingstone's time as Mayor an idea of how they expected the Underground and other London transport to look in 2016.

Spoiler: Big Tube Map

We have just over three weeks left of 2016, somehow I suspect they won't be able to deliver.

 

[Comisario]

I am in favour of adding Shoreditch High Street to the Central Line, if only because it makes it slightly easier for me to get my hands on salt beef.

 

[Simon]

I am in favour of adding Shoreditch High Street to the Central Line, if only because it makes it slightly easier for me to get my hands on salt beef.

It's a terrible thing to see a man with a salt beef monkey on his back.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

This might be of interest, drawn up during Livingstone's time as Mayor an idea of how they expected the Underground and other London transport to look in 2016.


We have just over three weeks left of 2016, somehow I suspect they won't be able to deliver.

There are other Future Tube Maps from 2021 to even 2050 and an accurate OTL London Underground Map, there was also another Future Tube Map for 2025 before the route to Crossrail 2 was safeguarded in 2008 (that appears to no longer be online).

Spoiler: 2021 Map

London 2050 Tube Map - https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2014/Tube2050/London Infrastucture Plan 2050 Transport v6.svg

Accurate London Underground Map - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/224813/response/560395/attach/3/London Connections Map.pdf

 

[Devvy]

With the right PODs up to the present day, what-if the London Underground (plus Overground, Crossrail) were expanded in the following manner without a restrictive Metropolitan Green Belt and alternate completed London Ringways network (along with potential boring out of smaller deep-level tube lines)?

(Wish there was a way to create an ATL Underground London Map..)

There is a way, but it takes a considerable amount of time just to make the average quality I manage on my TLs! MSPaint, and a lot of time is my solution.

Existing Lines:

• Central Line
• District Line
• Northern Line
• Metropolitan Line
• Victoria Line
• Hammersmith and City Line
  
• Waterloo and City Line
• Bakerloo Line
• Jubilee Line
• Docklands Light Railway / DLR
• Overground Line
• Crossrail 1 / Elizabeth Line
• Piccadilly Line
  
• Circle Line

Alternate Lines:

• Wimbleware Line
• Barden Line
• Mayfair Line

I hate to rain on the show, because trust me, I love drawing lines on maps and doing AH about trains in the UK (including London Underground) as many people on this board have probably noticed even if that's not their particular cup of tea.

However, a big problem, even in the 1950s and 1960s was capacity through the centre of London. Those tunnels are small, thus trains are small and limited in length. Start extending the ends of the lines, and you end up with 2 problems; a) given that Underground trains stop at every station marked for simplicity, you end up with long journey times in to London and b) you end up with far too many passengers trying to use the system.

This is why the Underground system hasn't really been extended much bar tinkering at the edges. There's definitely some scope, especially given the lack of a Green Belt you posit; the Northern Heights Plan bringing the Northern City Line in to the Northern Line would probably see light of day (which would probably allow the separation of the Northern Line in to 2 lines, one via Bank and one via Charing Cross). Central Line out to Denham and Chipping Ongar. Metropolitan Line back out to Aylesbury.

But to make any meaningful extensions, you're going to need to build new tunnels. Boring out the tunnels to a wider diameter is out of the question (you'd be eliminating a line from use for a couple of years to say the least), and is thus going to be more expensive and more difficult then just building a new line from scratch. Even the ones mentioned above will stretch the capacity of the networks (in the 1980s the Government looked at closing London Marylebone station; BR trains would be redirected to Paddington, and the Metropolitan would be re-extended to Aylesbury. However, Baker Street and the Met Line wouldn't have been able to cope with the increase in passenger numbers even with the lower numbers in the 1980s, and thus the plan was scrapped.).

Also, tunneling in South London is difficult because of the underlying rock; it's much softer then north of the Thames (hence the resulting tube map). It's far from impossible, but it's more difficult, slower and more expensive to do. There's other bits, like difficult flyovers/unders needed in several places to achieve the routes you mention (ie. at Upminster, the District Line terminates on the north side of the London-Shoeburyness line, requiring a flyover or a highly capacity-restricting crossover. Or the Waterloo and City Line - at Bank it terminates head on in to the Central Line, so couldn't be extended without completely redigging around Bank station - which is unlikely given the Bank of England vaults. You'd likely need to drop Bank station. At the Waterloo end, it actually terminates in a South-Easterly direction as well and in to the depot, so you'd need more bends and to sacrifice that depot too, to name but a couple).

If this stuff interests you like me, I'd highly encourage you to read more; there's a wealth of information around the internet about the histories of the Underground, planned extensions, cancelled extensions and all round technical details. I'll happily share a ton of info as well, always happy to talk to people with a similar interest too!

 

[PMN1]

Costs would be very important here, in one of Christian Wolmar's books on the Tube he quotes tunneling costs then compared to 2004.


11 ft 6” tunnels - £370,000 per mile (£18.5 million 2004)

16ft tunnels - £650,000 per mile (£32.5 million 2004)


Something which might be interesting is if it had been established that those tunneling underground did not have to pay anything to those in the properties above (unless those properties fell into the tunnel of course), as I understand it, a lot of lines followed roads because of this issue rather than a more direct, and potentially cheaper, route.

Something else which would help overall would be if the lines that were built were grade separated as from what I understand there are a number of lines which cross and create considerable congestion.

 

[Devvy]

Costs would be very important here, in one of Christian Wolmar's books on the Tube he quotes tunneling costs then compared to 2004.


11 ft 6” tunnels - £370,000 per mile (£18.5 million 2004)

16ft tunnels - £650,000 per mile (£32.5 million 2004)

That's because of the amount dirt you are displacing. 11.5ft tunnels result in an area of around 415ft. 16ft tunnels result in an area of around 810ft I think (I just closed calc a moment too early! Good old Pie-R-squared from school!). It's more expensive, but it gives you massively more capacity correspondingly.

Something which might be interesting is if it had been established that those tunneling underground did not have to pay anything to those in the properties above (unless those properties fell into the tunnel of course), as I understand it, a lot of lines followed roads because of this issue rather than a more direct, and potentially cheaper, route.

Something else which would help overall would be if the lines that were built were grade separated as from what I understand there are a number of lines which cross and create considerable congestion.

The deep-level tube lines are almost completely segregated, but you are correct about the sub-surface lines (Hammersmith & City, Circle, District, Metropolitan Lines). They all have significant interactions which each other and the District itself is a network of several "Lines" which operate.

The answer to this and other questions from earlier is "dig more tunnels" to grade separate and provide new interchanges through London so you don't overload any specific stations!

 

[PMN1]

An interesting possibility for a larger Tube is if Brunel's original tunneling shield was more like Gratehead's later shield was.

Innovation and the Rise of the Tunnelling Industry – Graham West


The first of Brunel’s shield patents (1818) described a cylindrical shield about 14ft diameter, divided across the horizontal diameter by a working platform into an upper and a lower half. Each half was further divided into five vertical cells each of which accommodated a miner and each of which had its own set of poling boards to support the face. Each cell could move independently, pushed forward by a hydraulic ram which reacted against a frame erected further back in the completed section of the tunnel. The lining, which was to be of cast iron segments, was erected under protection of a tailskin at the back of the shield. The hydraulic rams were specified to be double acting so that they could also pull the reaction frame forward from time to time as the tunnel progressed. The whole arrangement has a thoroughly workmanlike appearance and looks much more practicable than the cumbersome rectangular shield. Brunel eventually used when he came to drive the Tames Tunnel. Maybe the cylindrical shield with independently moving cells, each a different size and shape was too difficult to manufacture whereas a rectangular shield in which all cells were identical was easier to make. Whatever the explanation, the first shield in Brunel’s patents of 1818 is much more like the tunnelling shields as they eventually developed than is his Thames Tunnel shield. Also the cast iron segmental lining is clearly shown and its safe erection described whereas the Thames Tunnel was constructed with the less safely built and more time consuming brick lining.


Then there is the possibility of immersed tubes (from the same book)

Immersed tube tunnels

It will be recalled that when the Thames drift way was flooded in February 1808, Trevithick proposed to recover the works by sinking a caisson in the river, but the Thames Archway Co. did not accept this plan. In July 1808 Trevithick put forward an alternative scheme for constructing a tunnel under the Thames. A watertight wooden caisson, 50ft long by 30ft wide and reaching above high water level, was to be placed on the river bed. Wooden piles were then to be driven into the river bed just inside the caisson and to a depth just below the level of the bottom of the proposed tunnel, to form a close-boarded watertight cofferdam inside the caisson and projecting beneath it. The water in the caisson was to be pumped out and the earth inside the cofferdam was then to be excavated down to the depth of the bottom of the proposed tunnel. Any surplus water which had leaked into the excavation was to be drained away through a pipe into the drift way underneath, which was to be used as a drainage gallery for the new works. In the excavation it was then intended to construct a 50ft length of twin-tube brick tunnel, which when complete was to be covered with earth back up to river bed level. The piles forming the cofferdam were then to be withdrawn and the caisson moved 50ft further on across the river. The whole proves was to be repeated as many times as was necessary to cross the river, 50ft of tunnel being added at each stage. The caisson was to be fitted with a platform at the top carrying a steam crane which was to be used for drawing the piles and for hoisting the spoil and lowering material for constructing the tunnel. Each tube was to be 12ft in diameter and was to accommodate an 8ft wide waggon road and a 4ft wide footpath. Only 50ft of water would be occupied at any one time during construction, which Trevithick said was less than a 400 ton ship laying at anchor.

Trevithick’s plan, had it been put into practice, would have amounted to a cut and cover tunnel with the novel feature of being constructed beneath a river bed instead of on dry land. However, in September 1808 Trevithick proposed that instead of brickwork, the section of tunnel should be made of cast iron. Here, we have then an early proposal for a method of tunnel construction that approached closely the concept of an immersed tube tunnel. If it had been proposed that the cast iron cylinders could have been sunk into position in trench in the river bed rather than placed in a cofferdam excavation, then the idea would have been a true immersed tubes tunnel. As it was, this concept quickly followed, but it sprang from the mid of another engineer.


The Thames Archway Co rejected Trevithick’s plan for a cut and cover subaqueous tunnel just as it had earlier rejected his scheme for recovering the driftway. Instead in March 1809 the company advertised for plans to be submitted for completing the tunnel project: engineers were invited to suggest how the tunnel could be built. One of the plans submitted was by Charles Wyatt.


Wyatt’s plan was to excavate a trench across the river bed using steam excavators and ballast lighters and then to sink into the trench a series of cylinders, each about 50ft long, made from brickwork. The ends of the cylinders were to be provided with temporary spherical walls so that each one would be a watertight floating vessel. Each cylinder was to be provided with a cock to admit water so that it could be sunk, and a pump to empty it of water after it was in position. The trench was to be deep enough so that the cylinders could be covered with 6ft of earth without raising the level of the river bed, this thickness of cover being considered sufficient protection form ships anchors. There remained however, four vital questions upon which success or failure of the plan would depend. These were (i) Could cylinders be made from brickwork that would be strong enough to be towed into position and sunk? (ii) Could the cylinders be placed in the trench on the river bed with sufficient accuracy to be joined together to form a tunnel? (iii) When the cylinders were joined together and the temporary ends removed, would the joints be watertight? (iv) Could the whole operation be carried out in a busy waterway without being imperilled by collision form passing ships?

The company decided to begin preliminary trials to see if solutions could be found and authorised John Isaac Hawkins to begin preliminary trials.


The book goes on to say that in September 1810 tests were carried out that concluded that brickwork cylinders of sufficient strength could be made if the walls were 13 ½” thick. Tests in 1811 to deploy the tubes were successful although there were numerous incidents of boats hitting the scaffold that was doing the deploying and three quarters of the workmen’s time was spent repairing damage. There were leaks in the joins but it was considered that these could easily be sealed with puddled clay.


Hawkin’s trials had showed that questions (i) – (iii) could all be answered affirmatively and that Wyatt’s plans for an immersed tube were feasible technically. However, question (iv), the problem of posing an obstruction to navigation had proven troublesome. The Company blamed the’ accidental and unforeseen circumstances arising from the crowded state of the River’ for the fact that the cost of the trials had far exceeded the estimate.


In November 1811 the Directors of the Thames Archway Co declared that they considered it proper to suspend operations, being deterred from proceeding with the main project by the cost of the trials.



The book also points out that the use of compressed air for tunneling was suggested by Thomas Cochrane in 1830.


Earlier successful tunnels across the Thames might have resulted in a larger network.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

There is a way, but it takes a considerable amount of time just to make the average quality I manage on my TLs! MSPaint, and a lot of time is my solution.

Out of interest, what is the best London Transport or other standard baseline map to use as a starting point for MSPaint and how does one make sure the the maps are at least accurate / plausible?

More or less used to using the Q-BAM World Map when creating ATL scenarios outside of this thread.

I hate to rain on the show, because trust me, I love drawing lines on maps and doing AH about trains in the UK (including London Underground) as many people on this board have probably noticed even if that's not their particular cup of tea.

However, a big problem, even in the 1950s and 1960s was capacity through the centre of London. Those tunnels are small, thus trains are small and limited in length. Start extending the ends of the lines, and you end up with 2 problems; a) given that Underground trains stop at every station marked for simplicity, you end up with long journey times in to London and b) you end up with far too many passengers trying to use the system.

This is why the Underground system hasn't really been extended much bar tinkering at the edges. There's definitely some scope, especially given the lack of a Green Belt you posit; the Northern Heights Plan bringing the Northern City Line in to the Northern Line would probably see light of day (which would probably allow the separation of the Northern Line in to 2 lines, one via Bank and one via Charing Cross). Central Line out to Denham and Chipping Ongar. Metropolitan Line back out to Aylesbury.

But to make any meaningful extensions, you're going to need to build new tunnels. Boring out the tunnels to a wider diameter is out of the question (you'd be eliminating a line from use for a couple of years to say the least), and is thus going to be more expensive and more difficult then just building a new line from scratch. Even the ones mentioned above will stretch the capacity of the networks (in the 1980s the Government looked at closing London Marylebone station; BR trains would be redirected to Paddington, and the Metropolitan would be re-extended to Aylesbury. However, Baker Street and the Met Line wouldn't have been able to cope with the increase in passenger numbers even with the lower numbers in the 1980s, and thus the plan was scrapped.).

Also, tunneling in South London is difficult because of the underlying rock; it's much softer then north of the Thames (hence the resulting tube map). It's far from impossible, but it's more difficult, slower and more expensive to do. There's other bits, like difficult flyovers/unders needed in several places to achieve the routes you mention (ie. at Upminster, the District Line terminates on the north side of the London-Shoeburyness line, requiring a flyover or a highly capacity-restricting crossover. Or the Waterloo and City Line - at Bank it terminates head on in to the Central Line, so couldn't be extended without completely redigging around Bank station - which is unlikely given the Bank of England vaults. You'd likely need to drop Bank station. At the Waterloo end, it actually terminates in a South-Easterly direction as well and in to the depot, so you'd need more bends and to sacrifice that depot too, to name but a couple).

If this stuff interests you like me, I'd highly encourage you to read more; there's a wealth of information around the internet about the histories of the Underground, planned extensions, cancelled extensions and all round technical details. I'll happily share a ton of info as well, always happy to talk to people with a similar interest too!

Many of the ideas are inspired by current proposals, previous cancelled extension plans and beneficial adjustments (to ease congestion from other lines along with road / bus traffic on certain routes) taken to their logical conclusion though cannot seem to find any comprehensive sites or general UK AH-themed Railway / Tube sites aside from the odd nugget of information (e.g. District Line extension from Upminster to Grays).

While re-boring the tunnels on the deep-level tube lines appears to be out of the question, what would it entail for other ATL deep-level tube lines to at least be able use an equivalent of the OTL London Underground 2009 Stock as on the Victoria line, which has a slightly larger loading gauge compared with other deep-level tube lines (comparing well with the Metropolitan Line's subsurface-only S8 stock in terms of seating / standing capacity)?

Also if it is very difficult to extend the Waterloo & City Line from Bank to towards Moorgate (short of the Bank of England and its vault's being moved to another location), what other stations would be a suitable alternative whether existing (e.g. Mansion House, Cannon Street and Monument), proposed (e.g. Lothbury) or something different (a new King William Street station between Bank and Monument instead of the OTL Disused / Ghost station of the same name)?

Spoiler: London Underground Disused Stations Map

 

[Simon]

Slight digression but one of the proposals that always interested me was the Northern Heights plan as part of the New Works Programme of the mid- to late 1930s to take over the old Edgware, Highgate and London Railway (EH&LR) lines, specifically the part which would have included a line to Alexandra Palace via Highgate from Finsbury Park. You can also see it as part of the overall Northern Heights plan. Whilst it has hosted some notable shows over the years its history has been somewhat mixed with parts of it being closed and it being placed on English Heritage's Buildings at Risk register, would Alexandra Palace being on the Underground have helped it become a more viable venue do people think?

 

[Devvy]

Out of interest, what is the best London Transport or other standard baseline map to use as a starting point for MSPaint and how does one make sure the the maps are at least accurate / plausible?

More or less used to using the Q-BAM World Map when creating ATL scenarios outside of this thread.

There's a mini library of old London Underground maps here which are good for detail:
http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps.html

As to which I use as a base, normally one which has the plainest white background (ie. no zones) as this is usually the easiest to manipulate. As to making sure it's as accurate as possible, endless research and reading over time.

Many of the ideas are inspired by current proposals, previous cancelled extension plans and beneficial adjustments (to ease congestion from other lines along with road / bus traffic on certain routes) taken to their logical conclusion though cannot seem to find any comprehensive sites or general UK AH-themed Railway / Tube sites aside from the odd nugget of information (e.g. District Line extension from Upminster to Grays).

While re-boring the tunnels on the deep-level tube lines appears to be out of the question, what would it entail for other ATL deep-level tube lines to at least be able use an equivalent of the OTL London Underground 2009 Stock as on the Victoria line, which has a slightly larger loading gauge compared with other deep-level tube lines (comparing well with the Metropolitan Line's subsurface-only S8 stock in terms of seating / standing capacity)?

Also if it is very difficult to extend the Waterloo & City Line from Bank to towards Moorgate (short of the Bank of England and its vault's being moved to another location), what other stations would be a suitable alternative whether existing (e.g. Mansion House, Cannon Street and Monument), proposed (e.g. Lothbury) or something different (a new King William Street station between Bank and Monument instead of the OTL Disused / Ghost station of the same name)?

Sites that are worth reading:
http://www.londonreconnections.com(excellent London transport blog, very detailed articles, with a wealth of information in the past articles)
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/ (pretty details articles on each London Underground line)
http://carto.metro.free.fr/documents/CartoMetroLondon.v3.6.pdf (Carto Metro for London; insanely detailed map of London rail network down to the individual tracks)
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/ (Archive of a ton of Government reports about rail in the UK generally - you can find a lot of the Government studies for extending the Tube network over the years in here, which will give you a really detailed insight in to what is plausible technically, financially, politically)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (and of course Wikipedia - but look in to the station articles as well, because there are often nuggets of information on other pages other then the overall line article).

PS Edit: As for extending the Waterloo & City Line as you mention, Bank station is insanely complex to go through. If you had to, I'd suggest routing via a new station at Cannon Street (interchange with Circle/District Line, as well as British/National Rail). However, you need to think "is extending the W&C the best option". Bear in mind that trains on that line are limited to 4 carriages, as opposed to the general Underground standard of 7-8 coaches - so it has half the capacity with the same number of trains running. Rerouting it will take it out of action for a 18 months or so at the very least. What do you gain from rerouting it, apart from inheriting some limitations. And if you are reboring it to have bigger and longer trains, why not just make a new tube line free from limitation rather then building on something else. Also, the W&C Line is *insanely* busy at rush hour already, without any extra passengers on!

As for Moorgate, and the terminus of the Northern City Line, Crossrail gave us some great engineering images during planning:

You can see that the Northern City Line terminates virtually head on in to the Circle Line, so you can't easily extend straight on. So you'll need to bore new platform tunnels for the extension to start with, and eliminate Moorgate on the line for 18-24 months. Also, the Northern Line is directly below the Northern City Line, so you can't just dive under either. You need a complex twist nearer to Old Street to get to the side of the Northern Line and then dive down to run past Moorgate if you were to extend anywhere else. Also, trains on the NCL are limited to 6 coaches; Crossrail is planning 9 coach trains for comparison. Again, the shorter trains limit capacity. (end of PS Edit!)

Slight digression but one of the proposals that always interested me was the Northern Heights plan as part of the New Works Programme of the mid- to late 1930s to take over the old Edgware, Highgate and London Railway (EH&LR) lines, specifically the part which would have included a line to Alexandra Palace via Highgate from Finsbury Park. You can also see it as part of the overall Northern Heights plan. Whilst it has hosted some notable shows over the years its history has been somewhat mixed with parts of it being closed and it being placed on English Heritage's Buildings at Risk register, would Alexandra Palace being on the Underground have helped it become a more viable venue do people think?

Likewise, the Northern Heights was one of the first I found fascinating as well. I can't remember where I read, but it was heavily suggested that passenger numbers on the Finsbury Park - Alexandra Park branch were shocking, mostly because of a much better and quicker service on the nearby ECML commuter services. On the other hand though, if you have a direct commuter link to the City, rather then just to Kings Cross, that would probably pick up some patronage. Alex Palace by itself is unlikely to warrant much; look at the service levels to Kensington Olympia these days for an example of how an exhibition venue will generate little traffic outside of weekends.[/QUOTE]

 

[yulzari]

Taking a lateral view. Increasing the flow of passengers into central London is unwise as it stands as the existing service is frankly beyond it's limits at peak times. Rebuilding them to higher standards would be very expensive and incredibly disruptive. Road alternatives are also already strained. Trams would impact upon existing road capacity.

Let us look at the past. Overhead railways. Today we can make these quiet and (locally) pollution free. Modern controls can place moving units close together so giving a far denser service than the old manual control of trains and trams. There would be some disruption but only around the building of each supporting tower which is no worse than major road maintenance. In Berlin terms a U Bahn as well as the S Bahn. Now you have central London able to take the increased passenger traffic that would be generated by extending the Tube network and a proven technology that can be applied where tube lines cannot economically/technically and a new industry that can export it's skills, track, controls and rolling stock. Then the proven system and experience could perhaps be employed to deal with longer distance rail travel. Overhead lines can co exist with current agricultural, urban and industrial land use. Long ago it was proposed that one could use existing rail trackways too by building overhead railways above the existing track so no new land need be purchased or lost. Today one can add motorways to the list of pre existing routeways.

A central London, then suburban London overhead railways system would be the proving ground to a new 21st century age of rail expansion.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Costs would be very important here, in one of Christian Wolmar's books on the Tube he quotes tunneling costs then compared to 2004.

11 ft 6” tunnels - £370,000 per mile (£18.5 million 2004)

16ft tunnels - £650,000 per mile (£32.5 million 2004)

Something which might be interesting is if it had been established that those tunneling underground did not have to pay anything to those in the properties above (unless those properties fell into the tunnel of course), as I understand it, a lot of lines followed roads because of this issue rather than a more direct, and potentially cheaper, route.

Something else which would help overall would be if the lines that were built were grade separated as from what I understand there are a number of lines which cross and create considerable congestion.

How much wider do they need to be to accommodate overhead wires? For example, like the tunnels on the Tyne & Wear Metro.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Also if it is very difficult to extend the Waterloo & City Line from Bank to towards Moorgate (short of the Bank of England and its vault's being moved to another location), what other stations would be a suitable alternative whether existing (e.g. Mansion House, Cannon Street and Monument), proposed (e.g. Lothbury) or something different (a new King William Street station between Bank and Monument instead of the OTL Disused / Ghost station of the same name)?

I read (IIRC in Nock's Rails Under the Clay) that the Metropolitan's attempt to have the GNCR extended from Moorgate to an end-on junction with the W&CR at Bank failed because it couldn't get the wayleaves needed from the owners of the land it passed under. Was the Bank of England one of them?

One of my favourite railway what ifs is that the GNR actually owned the GNCR and used its financial muscle to have it completed on time and for either the GNCR's proposal of 1901 for electric workings over GNR metals or the GNR's own 1903 scheme to be implemented.

Then the backers of the Waterloo and City (which IIRC had its act of parliament several years after the GNCR, but was completed at the same time or earlier than the GNCR) have it built to accommodate main line trains like the GNCR. IIRC the it wasn't bought by the Southern Railway until the 1920s, but that its main sponsor was the LSWR, which in my TL has a junction built with its main line network at Waterloo. The LSWR and GNR then build a joint connecting line from Bank to Moorgate that creates a Thameslink about 70 years before the real one.

 

[Michel Van]

Northern Line – The alternate Edgware branch of the Northern Line

The work for that Line start in 1940 but were stop in 1941 do World War Two

Jay Foreman made a humorous Youtube Video about this Project and impact it could have...

 

[Masked Grizzly]

There's a mini library of old London Underground maps here which are good for detail:
http://www.clarksbury.com/cdl/maps.html

As to which I use as a base, normally one which has the plainest white background (ie. no zones) as this is usually the easiest to manipulate. As to making sure it's as accurate as possible, endless research and reading over time.



Sites that are worth reading:
http://www.londonreconnections.com(excellent London transport blog, very detailed articles, with a wealth of information in the past articles)
http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/ (pretty details articles on each London Underground line)
http://carto.metro.free.fr/documents/CartoMetroLondon.v3.6.pdf (Carto Metro for London; insanely detailed map of London rail network down to the individual tracks)
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/ (Archive of a ton of Government reports about rail in the UK generally - you can find a lot of the Government studies for extending the Tube network over the years in here, which will give you a really detailed insight in to what is plausible technically, financially, politically)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (and of course Wikipedia - but look in to the station articles as well, because there are often nuggets of information on other pages other then the overall line article).

Thanks, also recall seeing a few things on District Dave's site and elsewhere though it no longer appears to have an AH-themed subforum for What-if ideas and proposals.

PS Edit: As for extending the Waterloo & City Line as you mention, Bank station is insanely complex to go through. If you had to, I'd suggest routing via a new station at Cannon Street (interchange with Circle/District Line, as well as British/National Rail). However, you need to think "is extending the W&C the best option". Bear in mind that trains on that line are limited to 4 carriages, as opposed to the general Underground standard of 7-8 coaches - so it has half the capacity with the same number of trains running. Rerouting it will take it out of action for a 18 months or so at the very least. What do you gain from rerouting it, apart from inheriting some limitations. And if you are reboring it to have bigger and longer trains, why not just make a new tube line free from limitation rather then building on something else. Also, the W&C Line is *insanely* busy at rush hour already, without any extra passengers on!

As for Moorgate, and the terminus of the Northern City Line, Crossrail gave us some great engineering images during planning:


You can see that the Northern City Line terminates virtually head on in to the Circle Line, so you can't easily extend straight on. So you'll need to bore new platform tunnels for the extension to start with, and eliminate Moorgate on the line for 18-24 months. Also, the Northern Line is directly below the Northern City Line, so you can't just dive under either. You need a complex twist nearer to Old Street to get to the side of the Northern Line and then dive down to run past Moorgate if you were to extend anywhere else. Also, trains on the NCL are limited to 6 coaches; Crossrail is planning 9 coach trains for comparison. Again, the shorter trains limit capacity. (end of PS Edit!)

That brings up the question as to which of the ideas per line in the first post are the most plausible / workable given the right PODs and foresight / imagination, yet still roughly corresponding to the OTL London Underground as much as possible (via butterfly nets)?

Also from looking at the Carto Metro for London Map, it suggests that the Waterloo & City line could conceivably have connected to Moorgate via Thameslink / Ludgate Circus or St. Pauls or even utilized both stations along the way (instead of stopping at Bank).

Additionally, what could have been done to remedy the carriage limitations issues of the Waterloo & City so an ATL version ends up following the OTL 7-8 coach London Underground Standard?