WI - Expanded London Underground

Nick P

Donor
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?

To extend the Waterloo & City platforms for 6 or 8 car units would be very difficult given that at both ends the line makes a sharp turn shortly after leaving the stations. This is very obvious at Bank where I often watch the just-missed train disappear into the turn just a couple of carriage lengths away. It might be possible to extend the platforms a bit and make the trains 5-car units but the limitation is probably in the depot at Waterloo. This is at street level and runs into the back of the shops on Lower Marsh making a Southbound extension impossible.

If you can extend the line Northbound you might as well keep the current 4-car setup and buy a few more trains to run a more frequent service.
 
To extend the Waterloo & City platforms for 6 or 8 car units would be very difficult given that at both ends the line makes a sharp turn shortly after leaving the stations. This is very obvious at Bank where I often watch the just-missed train disappear into the turn just a couple of carriage lengths away. It might be possible to extend the platforms a bit and make the trains 5-car units but the limitation is probably in the depot at Waterloo. This is at street level and runs into the back of the shops on Lower Marsh making a Southbound extension impossible.

If you can extend the line Northbound you might as well keep the current 4-car setup and buy a few more trains to run a more frequent service.

Building upon the previous post's northbound route to Moorgate via Thameslink / Ludgate Circus and St. Pauls that avoided the OTL's sharp turn towards Bank. Would a southbound extension (and thus 6-8 Carriages) be doable if the ATL Waterloo & City Line also avoided the sharp turn on the south side of the Thames via Southwark (preceding the OTL Jubilee Line Southwark station by almost a century) allowing for a stop at Waterloo in a southwesterly (instead of southeasterly) direction?

Or failing that avoiding Waterloo entirely by having the now ATL "Thameslink & City Underground Line" head southbound from Southwark to Lambeth North in a southwesterly direction.
 
Last edited:
I've been to London many times, frankly expanding the tube/surface rail lines given the horrible traffic situation in metro London could only be a good thing
 
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.

Which lines would have utilized the tunnel from Rotherhithe to Limehouse had it been completed alongside the existing nearby OTL Thames Tunnel from Rotherhithe to Wapping, assuming it was suitable for railways / underground trains?

Im1934RTrev-TArch.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
I don't know what this proves, but here we go...

I used the Geometry Calculator for the volume of a cylinder on Bing:

th


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

A diameter of 11.5 feet equals a radius of 5.75 feet for an area of 79 square feet and a volume of 414,690 cubic feet per mile of tunnel. Or £0.89 per cubic foot of 11ft 6in diameter tunnel (about £45 at 2004 prices).

16 ft 0" tunnels - £650,000 per mile (£32.5 million 2004)

A diameter of 16.0 feet equals a radius of 8.00 feet for an area of 201 square feet and a volume of 1,061,607 cubic feet per mile of tunnel. Or £0.61 per cubic foot of £16ft diameter tunnel (about £30 at 2004 prices).

The Crossrail tunnels are 20ft 4in wide according to Wikipaedia.

A diameter of 20.33 feet equals a radius of 10.165 feet for an area of 314 square feet and a volume of 1,658,761 cubic feet per mile of tunnel.

Each increase of about 4 feet in the diameter of the tunnels seems to produce an increase in volume of about 600,000 cubic feet per mile of tunnel.
 

Nick P

Donor
Building upon the previous post's northbound route to Moorgate via Thameslink / Ludgate Circus and St. Pauls that avoided the OTL's sharp turn towards Bank. Would a southbound extension (and thus 6-8 Carriages) be doable if the ATL Waterloo & City Line also avoided the sharp turn on the south side of the Thames via Southwark (preceding the OTL Jubilee Line Southwark station by almost a century) allowing for a stop at Waterloo in a southwesterly (instead of southeasterly) direction?

Or failing that avoiding Waterloo entirely by having the now ATL "Thameslink & City Underground Line" head southbound from Southwark to Lambeth North in a southwesterly direction.

"The Drain" was built directly underneath the many mainline platforms at Waterloo to enable commuters from the south to reach the City of London with ease. That is how it got paid for. You can't have a W&C line without the sheer volume of passengers from the mainline going to work. If it was deeper there might be serious lifts or more escalators to handle the crowds - hopefully at both ends of the line!

Here you're talking a rather different location probably further underground which might later block other Tube lines from running through the area. That could later force the Jubilee line to avoid the Waterloo/South London route and go via Charing Cross as originally planned. http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/transport/3tran4.jpg
3tran4.jpg
 
Which lines would have utilized the tunnel from Rotherhithe to Limehouse had it been completed alongside the existing nearby OTL Thames Tunnel from Rotherhithe to Wapping, assuming it was suitable for railways / underground trains?

Im1934RTrev-TArch.jpg


Absolutely no idea, just suggesting that if tunneling had been shown to be easier (assuming Brunell's circular shield worked) sooner then you may just get a larger network.
 
Have updated the Lines as follows.

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 Chigwell to Ongar via Loughton. With part of the Woodford to Hainault branch (up to Chigwell) being transferred to the Victoria line.
  • District Line - The final stops on the Main Branch of the District Line are Ealing Broadway and Upminster. With the ATL expanded Waterloo & City Line taking over the former Richmond branch up to Turnham Green towards Hammersmith via Emlyn Road 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 East Putney with notable new stops being at Watford Junction, Bushey, Bushey Heath, Elstree, Brockley Hill, Nine Elms, Battersea and Clapham Junction.
  • 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 either Chigwell from Walthamstow Central via Wood Street, Woodford and Roding Valley or at Enfield Town via Seven Sisters, Northumberland Park, Angel Road, Edmonton Green and Bush Hill Park (taking over from the Enfield Town branch of the Overground).
  • Hammersmith and City Line – terminates at Newbury Park from East Ham (instead of Barking as in OTL) via Ilford.
  • Waterloo and City Line – extends to Richmond from Southwark via Turnham Green, Emlyn Road, Hammersmith (Circle / Hammersmith & City), Kensington Olympia, High Street Kensington, Royal Albert Hall, Knightsbridge, Victoria, Millbank (vicinity of Horseferry Road), Lambeth North and Waterloo as well as to Bounds Green (or Amos Grove) from Thameslink / Ludgate Circus via St. Pauls, Moorgate, Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Stroud Green, Crouch End, Highgate, Cranley Gardens, Muswell Hill and Alexandra Place (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 – Alternate route from Green Park to London Bridge via Charing Aldwych-Strand, Ludgate Circus / Thameslink and Cannon Street. Also 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 a stop at Burdett Road as well as extension to Barking via Beckton.
  • Overground Line – As OTL (plus proposed extensions including stations at Leytonstone, Junction Road, Golders Green via Gospel Oak to Barking Riverside branch (with further extensions to Abbey Wood via Thamesmead) along with an extension of the Lea Valley branch from Chingford to Loughton
  • 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:
  • 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 or Borehamwood).

Main Questions are:
  1. How to separate and create a new line out of the Wimbledon to Edgeware Road branch of the District Line along with the best way to extend the line so it terminates at Fenchurch Street or perhaps further north of Edgeware Road?
  2. How to go about having the District Line take over the Romford to Upminster branch of the Overground?
  3. The best way to create a direct connection between Ilford and Barking?
  4. What would be the best way to get a Underground station at Chelsea / King’s Road (as opposed to Crossrail 2) and which lines would be the main candidates for such a station?

Absolutely no idea, just suggesting that if tunneling had been shown to be easier (assuming Brunell's circular shield worked) sooner then you may just get a larger network.

Understood.

Guess it might be somewhat doable for an ATL Overground extension on the East London branch to Stratford from Canada Water via the alternate Thames Archway tunnel from Rotherhithe at Lavender Pond to Limehouse.
 
Last edited:
  • Docklands Light Railway / DLR – [SNIP]
I have a, some would say an irrational, dislike of the DLR. Whilst it would be much more expensive, if you're trying to expand and improve the Underground, I'd say build it as a proper underground line. That might be a little crayonista though. :)
 
I have a, some would say an irrational, dislike of the DLR. Whilst it would be much more expensive, if you're trying to expand and improve the Underground, I'd say build it as a proper underground line. That might be a little crayonista though. :)

Understandable, though given how many branches the DLR has how would you go about dividing the OTL branches where the main branch is instead conceived as a proper Underground Line with the other DLR subbranches spawning 1 or more Underground Lines?
 
Not sure how realistic it is though have attempted to divide the OTL DLR into the following 3 viable ATL Underground Lines (am sure somebody will think of more creative names for the Lines):
  • Docklands Line - St. Pancreas and Euston by Holborn and Thameslink via Bank to Ilford by Barking via Beckton. (inspired by OTL DLR extension proposals to St. Pancreas and Euston via Bank)
  • Stratham Line - Stratford via Pudding Mill Lane to Beckenham Junction.
  • Thames Eastern Line - Tottenham Hale by Lea Bridge via Stratford International to Canning Town (alongside the Jubilee Line from Stratford to Canning Town) towards King George V that connects either to Dagenham Docks by Galleons Reach or Abbey Wood by Woolwich Arsenal towards Chafford Hundred using the Dartford Crossing as an Eastern Loop of sorts.
Tower Gateway station meanwhile somehow becomes part of the Metropolitan Line extension from Aldgate to Canary Wharf.

Interestingly have read elsewhere that had the OTL Jubliee Line platforms at Stratford been lowered while it was being built, it would have allowed the Jubilee line to continue on from Stratford towards Tottenham Hale.

Not sure where that would have left Stratford International station though.
 
Last edited:
Top