As the first quarter of 2012 dawns, however, the landscape already seems to have shifted considerably. Of the three schemes it is now only the Croxley Rail Link – the project that would have seemed the least likely of the three to proceed at all just three years ago – that now seems likely to make it off the drawing board, at least in the short term.

Yet despite this it is the prospect of extensions to the Northern and the Bakerloo Lines that continue to draw headlines.

Given the dire need to improve Tube connections in South East London this is perhaps understandable. No doubt the fact that both represent solid London political fodder helps as well. What it means, however, is that in recent months the reality behind the carefully chosen wording of strategies and press conferences has sometimes become difficult to discern. What follows, therefore, is an attempt to summarise in the simplest terms the current situation with regards to both schemes.

Taking the Northern Line to Battersea

We have covered at length the development of the proposal to take the Northern Line to Battersea and December 2011 seemed to see the scope of this project finally agreed. TfL, REO (owners of the Battersea site and the extension’s major private sector backer) and both Lambeth and Wandsworth councils reached provisional agreement over the route the extension would take. Out of all the routes consulted on publicly, Option 4 appeared to have been decided upon. This would see the Northern Line extended from Kennington to Battersea, with an intermediate station, “Nine Elms,” in Wandsworth somewhere in the vicinity of Sainsbury’s on Wandsworth Road. An option for further extension to Clapham Junction at a later date would be included within the design (a detailed breakdown of this can be found in the associated report to Lambeth Council).

By December, it seemed that the main question that remained was over funding. The project work undertaken by TfL (and paid for by REO) had established that the developer’s own initial public estimates of possible cost (approximately £390m) were highly optimistic and certainly didn’t include the cost of an intermediate station. After detailed cost evaluation, the inclusion of the associated costs of an extra station and the inclusion of a 35% optimism bias it seemed likely that funds and assurances equivalent to approximately £850-900m would be needed.

Nonetheless, the business case for the station was still strong, and it was believed that funds could be found. No money would be available from TfL or Central Government, but S106 commitments from developers would cover an estimated £300m – with £200m of that crucially coming from REO’s Battersea plans. Alongside that it appeared that additional local transport funding and business rate commitments could be found which, if combined with some form of Tax Increment Funding (TIF), would likely prove enough to cover the total cost of the scheme.

The major question, therefore, was one of borrowing. TfL were unwilling to take on the upfront borrowing that would be need to carry out the project (unsurprising as the organisation, whilst perfectly secure and solvent, is already very close to its borrowing limit) and thus this would need to fall to the developer or a combination of the boroughs involved. It was an issue, but one that was by no means insurmountable.

Then just before Christmas it was confirmed that REO would be placed in Administration – Lloyds and Nama, to whom the developer owed $380m – had called in their loans and REO, a subsidiary of troubled Irish developer Treasury Holdings, were unable to pay. In order to recoup their costs, the banks wanted the Battersea site sold.

As it stands, therefore, the Northern Line extension to Battersea is now effectively on hold. Without the Battersea development (and more importantly the £200m S106 that brings to the table) the project cannot proceed.

TfL have confirmed that the Mayor has requested that work towards a potential TWA submission at the end of 2012 will continue based on the current scheme. If a new developer has not bought out the site and agreed to the S106 arrangements, however, this will not be submitted, as both the DfT specifically and the Treasury have indicated that whilst they support the scheme in principle, they will provide no public funding. With REO’s exit from the scene it is not yet clear who will carry any extra cost incurred by the TWA process.

Extending the Bakerloo

It has become a much publicised fact that the Bakerloo Line is the only one of London’s Tubes that currently has spare capacity. Given this, it is perhaps no surprise that there has been much talk of its extension.

This has become particularly prevalent after the inclusion of a Bakerloo Extension in the long term aspirations expressed in the Mayor’s updated transport strategy. Perhaps encouraged by this, Lewisham then carried out their own investigation into a possible extension of the line. Since then, the Mayor has reiterated his desire to see the Bakerloo extended and his intention to broach the subject with the DfT and Treasury.

Unfortunately, no concrete plan is currently being developed to extend the Bakerloo. TfL have confirmed that, as part of the production of the new MTS, the possibility was investigated and a number of options updated and revaluated (business case comparisons to extending the DLR instead were apparently also made).

As a result of this TfL have confirmed that, as it stands, the best business case would see an extension to Hayes, with one of two routes likely (and almost certainly not Lewisham’s suggested scheme):

1) Hayes via Old Kent and Lewisham
2) Hayes via Peckham and Camberwell Green

TfL Planning Director Michelle Mix, speaking in front of the London Assembly Transport Committee last week, admitted that of these the first option had a far stronger business case due to the inclusion of New Cross.

Although TfL’s report into the extension isn’t public, it is thus reasonable to suspect that the proposed route of such an extension would be similar to Option 3 of the 2007 study undertaken by TfL.

Despite a strong business case and spare capacity, though, it is financing that once again means that a Bakerloo extension is currently a non-starter.

At the Committee meeting Mix confirmed that the baseline cost estimate for a Bakerloo Extension is currently £3.5bn – £4bn. Sufficient money for such a project certainly doesn’t exist within TfL and, as with the Northern Line, neither Central Government nor the DfT are prepared to make such a commitment. Without a significant commitment from an external source – such as a developer – no work on extending the Bakerloo is likely to take place for the foreseeable future.

As a result, Mix confirmed that TfL currently considered the extension of the Bakerloo to be a very low priority project, with current efforts in that area focused on securing funding to upgrade the Line rather than extend it. Indeed she also confirmed that, to her knowledge at least, there had been no discussion between the Mayor and the Government so far over the topic of a Bakerloo Extension.

A Return to the Wishlist

As can be seen above, therefore, without a financial White Knight, talk of both Northern and Bakerloo Line Extensions should very much be taken with a pinch of salt. Both projects have significant merit, but with TfL’s financial efforts focused elsewhere they lack the funding required to be taken further. They may both have significantly stronger business cases than Hillingdon Council’s desire to take the Central to Uxbridge, or the similar extension of the Central to Harlow, but they must remain on London’s wish list nonetheless (a list that perhaps in practical, rather than political, terms the Bakerloo extension never really left).

As a result it seems likely that those looking to see the colours of the Underground map stretch further will have to content themselves in the short term with looking north. There at least some hope can be found as indeed, perhaps, can some lessons. As the history of the Underground has consistently demonstrated (and Herts Council’s persistence with the Croxley Rail Link proved), more often than not expanding London’s transport infrastructure is about being able to whip out the right plan quickly at the right time.

If nothing else, at least for both the Northern and Bakerloo Lines it now seems that those plans exist.

The Waterloo & City line was, of course, not technically part of the London Underground for some time. Originally constructed for the London & South Western to connect Waterloo to the City across the river, it was taken over by Southern in 1923 and did not officially become part of the Underground until privitisation in the 1990s.

For a long time, it had a single connection to the mainline railway – an Armstrong Lift located next to the main Waterloo terminus where the old Eurostar terminal is now. The first video below shows this lift in action, with it being used as part of the process to remove the old 1898 Jackson and Sharp wooden rolling stock and replace it with the new 1940 stock built by English Electric (Class 487s to their friends).

Ultimately, the 487s would have an impressively long life. They would remain in service until 1992, when the line would receive the current 1992 stock. The second video, below, shows the 487s and the Armstrong Lift towards the end of both their service lives.

The sight of an Underground train in British Rail colours will certainly seem strange to anyone born after about 1985, but helps demonstrate that London Transport (and its governance) has always been an ever-changing beast. Indeed its tempting to wonder what comes next – perhaps future generations will find the idea of London suburban services in non-Overground colours equally bizarre.

Britain had been invaded.

The invading force (the Germans, if the soldiers tasked with responding were to be believed) appeared to have gained that greatest of military assets – suprise. Now, having secured a beachhead, they were pushing towards Shoeburyness.

For Captain R.K. Bagnall-Wilde of the Royal Engineers, the officer on the spot, this was a potentially disastrous situation. If the enemy reached the town they would secure a strategically important point on the Thames Estuary and Britain’s ability to resist the invasion would be seriously compromised. The facts were simple. Shoeburyness needed to be held at all costs but only a small number of troops were stationed in the town – certainly nowhere near enough to successfully dig in and defend it.

Bagnall-Wilde’s immediate objective, therefore, was simple. The nearest available troops were at Warley Barracks near Brentwood in Essex and the Captain needed to get them to Shoeburyness. Fast.

It was a big ask. With the enemy already moving towards their target, Bagnall-Wilde would need to assemble his reinforcements and get them to Shoeburyness faster than any forced march would allow. Luckily, the Captain had an ace up his sleeve. One the Germans wouldn’t expect. For Bagnall-Wilde had been given permission by British Army Headquarters to call upon a relatively new technology – motorised transport.

And so Bagnall-Wilde turned to the people who perhaps knew more about moving large numbers of people by motorised vehicle than anyone else in the world at that  point in time – the London General Omnibus Company.

Proving a Point

There was, of course, no invasion of Britain in 1908 – though relations with Germany were by then cooling rapidly and many thought it was an increasingly real possibility. The rest of the above scenario, however, is perfectly true. Captain Bagnall-Wilde was ordered to organise a response to an enemy invasion and the soldiers at Warley Barracks were indeed mobilised. The “London General” was also called upon to do its duty to King and Country. All, however, were part of a major military exercise – The War Office Trials of 1908.

By 1908, large-load motorised transport of materials and men was becoming increasingly common. For the War Office, however, the precise role that motor vehicles might play in Britain’s armed forces was still unclear. Did motorised transport represent an effective way of getting men quickly to a point of crisis, and if so could it be relied upon to do so quickly and reliably?

It was this that the 1908 War Office trials were set up to establish. This wouldn’t be the first time the War Office had carried out experiments with buses – they had carried out a very limited exercise involving steam buses and some men of the Essex Regiment earlier that year – but it would be the most extensive. The results of this exercise would help determine the War Office’s opinion on motorised transport for some time to come.

The London General

Given the importance of the exercise, it is not surprising that it was to the London General that the War Office turned for help. Established in 1855, the company had swiftly come to dominate the London Omnibus scene, buying out many of its smaller competitors along the way. Quick to spot the potential that the age of motoring held, the General had begun to switch from horse to motor operation as early as 1902. By the time of the War Office Trials this transition was well under way, and a reputation as a motorbus company first and foremost had recently been cemented by the  takeover of its two biggest rivals – the London Road Car Company and the Vanguard Company.

A London General de Dion Bouton in 1905, courtesy LTM

As 1908 drew to a close, therefore, the newly amalgamated London General stood proudly dominant over the London bus scene. Under the watchful eye of its visionary Chief Engineer Frank Searle, its busworks at Blackhorse Road (formerly owned by Vanguard) were about to become the spiritual birthplace of London Buses. It would be here in 1909 that Searle’s X-Type, the first bus truly customised for the streets of the Capital, would roll off the production line and here in 1910 that its legendary successor, the LGOC B-Type, would be born.

The B-Type ‘Ol Bill’ at the Imperial War Museum, by DanieVDM

Uncle Frank

Indeed it was to their Chief Engineer that the General’s senior management turned when the War Office asked them to take part in the Trials. Searle swiftly decided that he’d take personal command of the expedition and that a total of 36 buses would be required along with three suport vehicles. He asked each of the formerly separate motor companies that now made up the amalgamated General to contribute to  the exercise. From the General would come twelve 30hp de Dions. From the Vanguard, twelve Milnes-Daimlers. Finally, the London Road Car would contribute twelve 40hp Straker-Squires, the chassis of which were already being used to create motorised ambulances for the US Army.

A Straker-Squire in 1906, courtesy the LTM

The Exercise Begins

At 5:30am on the morning of Friday the 18th, with the fog lying thick on the ground, the General’s transport fleet assembled at Upton Park depot. All 36 buses reported present and correct, and each was – as planned – accompanied by a breakdown tender of the same type carrying spare tyres and parts. Searle himself brought his own own car, from which he would lead the expedition, accompanied by several other personnel from the General and a journalist from Commercial Motor Magazine.

The first stage of the exercise was planned to be quite simple. Upon leaving Upton Park Depot the buses would split into three columns based on the type of buses driven, each of which would be headed by a driver familiar with the roads outside of London. Each column would then independently make its way to Warley Barracks in Essex where the fleet would mass and pick up the waiting troops that Bagnall-Wilde had arranged for the exercise.

At first, things seem to go to plan. All the columns departed on time, and were soon making good progress. It swiftly became clear, however, that old rivalries die hard. Searle’s decision to split the fleet into columns based on the type of bus driven may have made sound logistical sense, but it also meant that the columns were also effectively split along company lines. Soon it became clear that as far as these columns were concerned, this was a race.

It’s not recorded what the people of Essex must have thought of that morning’s activities. The sight of over 35 buses speeding out of the morning fog, overtaking and retaking each other on narrow country roads, must have been both impressive and alarming – especially as many of the buses still carried their route-cards, proudly declaring that they were headed for Shoreditch or Hammersmith. It was a potential recipe for disaster, but even though Searle eventually realised what was happening, it was impossible to prevent it from his position in advance of the columns.

Luckily, all the buses made it to Warley without major incident (and purely for the record,  it appears that Vanguard’s Daimlers’ won). There they found men from the 1st Norfolk and the 7th Essex Regiments waiting to board.

A Vanguard Daimler in 1906, courtesy the LTM

The Hypothetical Relief of Shoeburyness

Perhaps to help dissuade further rivalry, but also to preserve the military’s need to split the reinforcing force (standard practice to ensure that in the event of mishap at least part of the reinforcements would get through) it was decided that the buses would undertake the next stage of their journey in two columns rather than three. The men were thus split into detachments of 25 and embarked. Each man carried full battle kit and a day’s rations. Half were given 150 rounds of ammunition, whilst half were given 90 rounds and entrenching equipment. Additional equipment – including stores and Maxim guns – was also placed on each bus. Overall, the intention was to make the loads as representative of what might be needed in a real combat situation as possible.

With the buses now heavily loaded, the  second stage of the trials thus began. It had been decided that in order to minimise disruption for both the men of the General and the Army the relief of Shoeburyness would be hypothetical rather than literal. Both columns would proceed at their own pace to an agreed meeting point a sufficient distance away, where the men would be disembarked. They would then immediately be re-embarked and  brought back to the barracks. They may not literally get to Shoeburyness,  but overall the buses and men would cover some 2000 miles in aggregate mileage – more than enough to help establish the practicalities of moving troops by petrol power.

The two columns left Warley at 8:30am but soon problems began to emerge. Too late, it became clear that through some miscommunication all three support vehicles had followed the first column, leaving the second without backup. Luckily, in the end only one of column two’s vehicles suffered severe enough problems to force its abandonment before the columns met up at the disembarkation point and the mistake could be corrected, and that vehicle was able to rejoin the column on its return.

Another problem soon manifested thanks largely to the extra weight the buses were now carrying. Back in London the rules of the road (then largely overseen by the Metropolitan Police) stipulated that buses should have an upper weight limit of 3.5tons empty, and 6tons loaded, and the roads of the Capital were designed to support this. Many of the Essex roads that the buses now advanced along, however, simply weren’t constructed to withstand that kind of load – especially as the amount of men and equipment on board the buses meant that many were well over weight. Worse, much of that load was concentrated upon the double-width wheels of the rear axles.

As a result the buses of both columns were soon carving heavy ruts into the road. This made it nice and easy for any vehicles that had fallen behind to follow the route, but the heavily damaged surface certainly didn’t make for an easy drive. This proved to be a major problem for column one, where a number of buses found themselves stuck and had to be helped by the recovery vehicles. Indeed on the return leg one of the Daimlers broke through the road surface completely, sinking up to both its axles, and had to be pulled free with great effort.

Overall, five buses would ultimately fail to complete the trip out to Hadleigh Crossroads – the designated rendezvous point - and back, with the expedition arriving back at Warley barracks just before 5pm that evening.

Despite these loses, however, the exercise had generally been successful, with soldiers from the lost buses having been successfully transferred to the remaining vehicles with little difficulty or delay incurred.  Indeed none of the buses had ultimately been lost to mechanical failure – to a vehicle, they were lost because they had moved off the road to allow oncoming traffic to pass and become trapped in soft ground due to their weight.

Lessons for the Future

That vehicles transporting troops should stay to the centre of the road at all costs was one of the first recommendations thus specified in the Report produced on the exercise for the War Office in its aftermath. This was, however, one of the few blights on what had been an otherwise impressive performance from both Searle and the men and motors of the General. Indeed in general the report was positively glowing.

With some lessons and the right vehicles, it argued, motorized vehicles were very much ready to step up and meet the military’s demands. The aforementioned issue of buses lost to soft ground needed to be guarded against, and vehicle weight needed to be kept down as much as possible (it was noted that none of the buses lost were de-Dions, which were much lighter then the other buses used).

Other recommendations were also made, which would soon become standard practice. Drivers should be as familiar with the vehicles they drove as possible and the use of different makes minimised. Routes should also be clearly defined and err towards the most simple and obvious rather than the fastest – particularly if the route was unfamiliar to the drivers used. Vehicles in a convoy should also try and travel about 60 yards apart, as this seemed to compensate for differing vehicle speeds and gear changes and kept the overall speed of a column consistent. In light of the losses, the report also recommended that one vehicle in eight be empty, allowing it to take up the load should another vehicle have to be abandoned.

Finally, the report noted that whilst the buses had proven well set up for transporting the men themselves (although a “no smoking or spitting” rule had apparently proven tricky to enforce), thought should be given to vehicles better suited for carrying their equipment. This would in part lead to later work to create standardised lorry designs for army use.

Overall, the report spoke highly of the promise of motor transport for the military, claiming that speeds of up to 12mph were realistic and achievable targets for moving men in this way. Indeed as Roy Larkin, points out in in his excellent book Destination Western Front: London’s Omnibuses Go to War, it perhaps speaks a bit too highly – suggesting that for the War Office a shift to motor transport had already been decided upon mentally if not officially.

Looking to the Future

The 1908 Trials were certainly a success – a coming of age, in a way, both for military transport and London Buses. If the Trials had proved a disaster then subsequent uptake of motor vehicles by the military, and the creation of the subsidy scheme which offered a small stipend to companies that agreed to allow their vehicles to be requisitioned in wartime, might both have been delayed. Ultimately, however, the impending technological heat of World War One always meant that motor transport would appear on the Army’s radar sooner rather than later.

Nonetheless, the 1908 Trials helped define many of the rules of the military road that would later become codified during World War One. They also represented the first motorized cooperation between London’s bus companies and the War Office – a relationship that would later see Frank Searle’s X and B-Types become a familiar sight to Tommies in the Great War as transport, ambulances and even mobile pigeon coups. It was also a partnership that would continue beyond the First World War well into the Second, when London’s buses would find themselves called in to help with everything from the aftermath of Dunkirk to evacuating children to the country (an operation, it is worth noting, masterminded by Frank Pick himself).  All on top of keeping London moving during the Blitz and beyond.

The 1908 Trials, therefore, may not ultimately have been a turning point in history but they were certainly an important milestone. Just over a century ago, London’s Buses and Busmen were called into battle for the first time and, as in the very real wars that would come later, they demonstrated that they would never be found wanting.

The £16.3m contract was won by Stadler, who committed to produce, test and deliver 6 Variobahns in sufficient time for them to enter service by June.

As a result, several of these trams have been gracing the streets of (and Stadlers’ testing track in) Chemnitz. The first unit has also now been delivered to Therapia Lane Depot, arriving on Monday. The new tram will be inserted into the normal timetable over the next two months, although it will not pick up passengers. It is currently expected to enter passenger service at the end of February. The other new units will shortly begin to arrive as well and will undergo a similar testing regime.

Undergoing Testing, courtesy and copyright of Volker Dornheim

Undergoing Testing, courtesy and copyright of Volker Dornheim

Following a Chemnitz Tram, courtesy Volker Dornheim

Alongside a Chemnitz Tram, courtesy Volker Dornheim

Not Picking Up Passengers, courtesy Volker Dornheim

Awaiting Transportation, courtesy Volker Dornheim

The First Unit Heads Off, courtesy Volker Dornheim

The Journey Begins, courtesy Volker Dornheim

Arriving at Therapia Lane

Unloading the Tram

Being Taken off the Transporter

A Helping Hand

First Prize: Seb B

Congratulations to Seb B, who takes home the result of the annual raid on both mine and Mwmbwls’ bookshelves. This year that equates to a copy of the truly excellent London’s Local Railways by Alan A. Jackson, and one of my favourite books of all time, Tiles of the Unexpected by Doug Rose.

Second Prize: Phil D & David P (combined entry)

Less glamorous perhaps, but probably more useful, Phil and David will be getting a selection of DLR and Overground items kindly donated to the cause by TfL. This includes notepads, some rather swanky DLR wallets and a number of other items that will cause those how see them to swoon with envy.

Third Prize: Chris C

A valiant attempt to retain his crown as Quiz champion, Chris C was just pipped at the post this year. Chris will be getting a rather classy (and surprisingly heavy) DLR pen and also a truly unique prize that will have his friends and relatives green with envy the moment they set foot in his kitchen – yes, I’m talking about a full set of TBM cutterhead fridge magnets, courtesy of Herrenknecht. Ladies and Gentlemen, I can assure you that you will not find those in IKEA, no matter how hard you look.

Once again, thanks to everybody who entered. We hope you enjoyed answering the questions as much as we enjoyed writing them – and start brushing up on your obscure London railways, because I already know what the next Mystery Line is going to be…

New Overground Signage at Canonbury

The Overground

As part of the track laying process (and as with elsewhere on the ELL), a granite ballast bed was laid to a depth of approx 30cm on top of the compacted earthworks and a protective membrane. This is then evened out by heavy machinery.

Laying Ballast

A Fine Lining & Sleeper Spacing (FLASS) machine then follows. This takes 14 concrete sleepers and lays them onto the ballast.

A FLASS Close Up

A FLASS Through the Arches

The same machine then lays 18m length rail sections onto the newly laid sleepers. These are fastened to the sleepers manually, and the rails joined with steel plates.

Track Laying Underway

A Rail Being Lowered into Place

Grinding Rails

This gives the track enough strength to support track-mounted machinery, allowing excavators and their accompanying wagons to follow up and place more ballast between the sleepers. A Tamper then follows, which aligns the track into its final position and vibrates the track to settle and stabalize it. Finally, the rails are welded together and the temporary steel plates removed.

Installation of the conductor rail and signalling will now be carried, and hopefully we’ll be able to post pictures of that at a later date.

Hanging in the Air Like Bricks Don’t

With landing gear down and landing lights and anti-collision lights on, they circle in the air over Battersea, Putney and Acton. In the words of Douglas Adams’ wonderful oxymoron, “Hanging in the air, like bricks don’t”. Flights from European time zones, with populations and public transport systems that rise before the United Kingdom, begin to add to the morning surge, inserting more, smaller aircraft to the mix. Finally, examples of a congestion endangered species – flights from British regional airports – appear. On top of all this, for every landing at Heathrow there is a corresponding take off later in the day.

A complex dynamic picture rapidly builds up, hinging on expert coordination from air traffic control. The Local Controller is responsible for providing separation between arriving and departing aircraft. This involves the safe sequencing of arrivals and departures by relaying Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) clearances together with taxi instructions, take-off and landing clearances and finally the provision of assistance to other flights just flying through the local area. There are clear identified guidelines for keeping aircraft at a safe separation distance from each other. IFR flights use a standard instrument approach when arriving at an airport, whilst pilots following Visual Flight Rules (VFR) follow a standard traffic pattern. The separation regulations for arriving aircraft are similar to the departure regulations with added complications. Arriving aircraft have different speeds with higher speed aircraft overtaking other slower aircraft. Some aircraft have stall speeds higher than many other aircraft top speeds. The controllers must sequence and space all arriving aircraft in a dynamic system.

A further complication is added by all aircraft producing wingtip vortices caused by the generation of lift from the wings. The vortices generated by “Heavy aircraft” (aircraft weighing 255,000 pounds or more) and Boeing 757 aircraft generate vortices with a strength equivalent to a small tornado. This turbulence can endanger another aircraft if it is following too close behind. As a result, there has to be a greater separation in distance and time when a “heavy” is in the traffic mix. Wingtip vortices can cause problems no matter the size of any of the aircraft if safe separation is not maintained. But that is not all that can go awry because, as Donald Rumsfeld, (when not trying to explain the Johari Window, a simple two by two matrix box in words that defied the graphic simplicity of the underlying concept), also once said “Stuff happens – and it’s untidy”. In the case of airports, untidiness is the weather, technical problems, security alerts and the odd, pub-quiz-tiebreak-winning-answer, Icelandic Volcano, that causes, “the best-laid plans o’ flights and men, Gang aft agley, An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promis’d joy!” [Good Job we have no Scottish readers - JB]

In every complex system that relies on sequential integration a further difficulty arises as the system starts to reach capacity. Congestion arises when there is a need to modify behaviour because of the presence of others in the system. All transport systems display a phase transition from flowing freely to a recurring hiccough that pulses through those following behind. This need to modify behaviour to match that of the least capable member is a race to the bottom in transport efficiency that we experience on daily basis on motorways, as evidenced by blaze of multiple brake lights followed by phantom jams caused for no apparent reason.

For engineers, TRIZ, the Inventive Problem Solution theory, suggests congestion is a simple physical contradiction of time and space. For economists, forcing the consequences of your decisions on to others is called “enforced externalities” and is part of their “Tragedy of the Commons” theory. In its simplest terms, it can be described like this:

In terms of trains, on a single line there can only be one train at any one time, on dual tracks two trains, and quadruple track four trains. The corollary is that at different times there can be more than one train on one track on single track, more than two trains on a double track and more than four, etc. For trains, substitute aircraft and for tracks substitute flight paths, taxi and holding points and loading gates.

So it all comes down to finding more space and more time. And for this, there are thus three choices – finding more space at the same time, finding more time using the same space, or a combination of both. The choices then continue:- whether to expand through a sustaining investment at an existing airport or a “disruptive” investment at a new airport.

“Disruptive” will be read differently, depending on where you stand – economists will use it synonymously with the term “game changing” whilst others, ranging from those who see such developments as a threat to the environment in general to those whose personal life style and life equity investments will be impaired, will read the term “disruptive” as “damaging or life changing”.

“Real Politik” greet “Vorsprung durch Technik”! – Why joined-up systems need joined-up thinking

“A commander in chief cannot take as an excuse for his mistakes in warfare an order given by his minister or his sovereign, when the person giving the order is absent from the field of operations and is imperfectly aware or wholly unaware of the latest state of affairs. It follows that any commander in chief who undertakes to carry out a plan that he considers defective is at fault; he must put forward his reasons, insist on the plan being changed and finally tender his resignation rather than be the instrument of his army’s downfall.”

“Military Maxims and Thoughts”, Napoleon Bonaparte as annotated by Robert C. Townsend in his 1974 book “Up the Organisation”

Runway operation is the fundamental system underlying all modern airports but in itself it is part of a hierarchy of mutually dependent iterative systems that are needed to keep the process going.

Passenger processing, aircraft sustainment (fuel, maintenance etc.), surface access/egress and security are all blended. This integration has been refined over the years so that systems have become more and more closely coupled. It is now difficult to separate the strands as evidenced by the recent spat between the Home Secretary and Brodie Clark, the senior manager at the Border Agency over the suspension (or unauthorised degradation) of entry formalities during terms of peak loading at the airport.

Much was made of the need for passengers to wait to pass immigration checks, however, the killing factor as far as the Airport and the Airlines were concerned was the fact that the entire system can only operate on the assumption that passengers will clear immigration in a reasonable period of time – ideally the same amount of time it takes to get their baggage off the plane and on to the baggage hall conveyers. If this does not happen and passengers are thus not standing ready to grab their bags in the hall, then the bags from later flights cannot be unloaded and the trolley system that ferries bags from flights cannot function in its corollary role in loading out-bound baggage.

Rapidly, a whole series of knock on effects takes place. Check-in times become protracted, resulting in the appearance of temporary marquees at Heathrow with the scant consolation of complementary water and crisps for passengers. Aircraft have to be kept on stands longer than expected, denying that ground space to incoming flights. Close-coupled airports function at the processing speed of their slowest system and as they approach capacity in any of those systems the potential for congestion to degrade that system and the overall super system increases. Synergy, the emergent properties that makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts, flicks as part of the phase transition from being a positive to be a negative effect.

The political bush fire that raged over this issue is in danger of confusing the smoke for the trees. One of the problems every Home Secretary faces is that nobody remembers when things go right, but everybody remembers when things go wrong.

Shelagh Mackinley, writing in the Guardian, highlights another problem arising from Government choices to operate through agencies that have wrought subtle and possibly unforeseen and unappreciated changes to traditional command and control structures.

The Home Secretary was rightly concerned about national security and this conditioned her perspective, but that is not the only perspective that needs to be considered and her colleagues in the Department of Transport should not be backward in coming forward in pointing out the knock-on implications of her position regarding the operation of the UKBA. They must reiterate the need for a holistic approach based on a sound understanding of systems engineering. It is also a question of tackling causes not treating symptoms. This is all about being tough on congestion and tough on the causes of congestion.

In part two we shall move on to an examination of the range of solutions available for London when it comes to addressing the Airport capacity problem, and just how tough they might be.

In the meantime, here are the answers. Feel free to voice your objections to any of our answers (or logic) in the comments, but as always, the judge’s decision is ultimately final!

The original questions can be seen in full here.

The Answers

Q1: This unit of 1938 tube stock is making a transport promise that ultimately it will be unable to keep – what is it?

Answer: Look closely at the Tube Map and you’ll see that it shows the The Northern Heights Extension that was never completed thanks to WW2 and the introduction of the Green Belt. This was part of the New Works Programme (which, as old quiz hands will have spotted, was why the image filename was “nwp”).

Q2: Where in London will you find this orphaned engine?

Answer: This is Robert the tank engine, now proudly back in place at Stratford after some time in exile in Colchester. The image filename was a reference to the new Shopping Centre nearby.

Q3: Built at the end of the 19th Century, I would later be described by Betjeman as a sad terminus of blighted hope. I was one of several London stations with a hotel as part of my frontage, although this was damaged in the Second World War and never really rebuilt. Even though I’d seen electric services since 1925, by that time I was already in decline. I would make it past my centenary though before Thameslink finally sealed my fate.

Which station was I?

Answer: I was, of course, Holborn Viaduct (for shame everyone who thought it was Broad Street!)

Q4: At which Nordic sounding place of rest can you find this park within a park?

Answer: Finsbury Park of course. The image filename was of course a reference to FINland’s greatest general.

Q5: What happened here in 1926 and again in 1999?

Answer: We were after some kind of acknowledgement that this section of line on the Millwall Viaduct has closed to passenger service twice – North Greenwich and then later High-Level Island Gardens on the DLR.

Q6: Below Burgundy Thompson, an American nursing student, describes her aunt’s activities on a fateful day for Britain’s railways. Who was her aunt?

Answer: It was, of course, Abbie Sweetwine, the American Nursing Lieutenant whose actions saved many lives on the day of the Harrow & Wealdstone disaster.

Q7: Which film, featuring this policeman, concludes with a dangerous chase across a tube line?

Answer: It was the Blue Lamp, featuring the death of the pictured Dixon (who would later be revived for “Dixon of Dock Green”).

Q8: How many of Crossrail’s new stations would they describe as being “cut and cover” constructions?

Answer: To avoid argument, we felt it best here to consult with the people who should really know, and thus Crossrail’s very own Chief Engineer has confirmed for us that they consider the correct answer to be three (Paddington, Canary Wharf and Woolwich for those who are counting)

Q9: Looking up, where are we?

Answer: We’re at Liverpool Street. The filename is a reference to the Stansted Express, and the caption to the fact that there are no roads in the City of London.

Q10: Omnibustically speaking, what does Commissioner Pete do that Cliff and Reg didn’t?

Answer: There are, of course, many differences between Pete (Peter Hendy) and both Cliff (Richard) and Reg (Varney). When it comes to buses, however, there is one rather big one. Whilst all three have driven (and held the right licences to drive) London Buses, neither Cliff (in Summer Holiday) nor Reg (in On The Buses) actually drove the bus that they’re most associated with in the public mind – the Routemaster. Cliff drove an RT, Reg drove Bristols. Mr Hendy, on the other hand, both owns and drives a Routemaster (keep an eye out for him behind the wheel on heritage days).

Q11: Can you name this mystery Line beneath the Capital – shown with it’s originally planned extensions (a bonus point for each “???” you can name)?

Answer: It is, of course, MailRail – the Post Office Railway or, as it will now be known in LR towers, “Tingey’s Undoing.” The bonus ??? were, Willesden Central Sorting Office (left), St Pancras (top) and Mount Pleasant (centre).

Q12: Whilst assuming a posture to avoid detection, at a terminus point that is not a terminus on a line that was and never was – where are we?

Answer: We’re at Crouch End (more specifically, on the old LNER if you’re being picky).

Q13: Where exactly was this driver’s eye views taken (and for a bonus point, from what rolling stock)?

Answer: We’re in the cab of the old 1983 Jubilee Stock now being used as artist’s studios at Village Underground, on the old Kingsland Viaduct looking out over Great Eastern Street (some variation or approximation of that will be accepted as an answer).

Q14: Lurking octagonally near Limehouse, which transport system was this power station built to serve?

Answer: Canals and/or Docks – It’s the Limehouse Accumulator Tower which provided hydraulic power for both lock gates and for cranes.

Q15: What was this site previously?

Answer: You’re looking at the new Shoreditch station, located on the site of the old Bishopsgate Goods Yard. Visible on the left are the now-listed Braithwaite arches, which (as one answerer probably correctly asserted) “Network Rail would quite cheerfully see burnt down.”

Thanks to everyone who took part!

The Croxley Rail Link is a project that London Reconnections has followed since our earliest days. Indeed it featured in our very first post back in 2008. Since then, its objectives have barely changed – divert the Metropolitan Line away from Watford Station and head to Watford Junction, with intermediate stations along the way.

Since 2008, the scheme has been publicly championed by Hertfordshire County Council, who have long seen an improved interchange at Watford Junction as a way to revitalise an area of the County that has seemed to under-perform economically. The scheme, however, is older than that – it was first proposed in its current form by London Underground in 1994, and it was they who carried out the first feasibility studies before Herts took up the reins in 1997 and begin trying to find a route to implementation.

Given the above, it is perhaps unsurprising that much of the coverage of the Croxley Rail Link announcement has so far focused primarily on Herts’ satisfaction at finally getting their own major rail infrastructure project successfully onto the table. This is indeed a major achievement and one which should be lauded. By taking on London Underground’s initial plans and quietly, but firmly, continuing to push, modify and develop them for 13 years, Herts have helped prove that it is possible for the Local Authorities along the Capital’s periphery to be involved in London’s rail infrastructure in a positive way (and also that sometimes it really is worth resisting the temptation to say “Sod it. Lets just build a busway”). Considering TfL’s active ambitions outward with regards to franchising and Oyster, Herts’ demonstration that influence can follow the up line as well as the down is a good thing.

With details of the Croxley Rail Link agreement now becoming more evident, however, there is also another important aspect to the project that is well worth highlighting:- The Croxley Rail Link looks set to demonstrate, for good or ill, whether “rail on a budget” really works. Look into the details, and it becomes clear that Herts have had to de-scope the Croxley Rail Link to within an inch of its life, sweating money and assets to – as the title suggests – extract the maximum milk for the absolute minimum amount of moo.

The Final Scheme

The map below gives a schematic view of how the project will now manifest.

The Croxley Rail Link, with thanks to George

Construction will likely start in 2014, and then the existing Metropolitan Line alignment to the current Watford terminus will be closed to passengers from 2016, with services diverted to Watford Junction instead. This link will be achieved by providing an embankment and viaduct from the Croxley rail line across Watford road passing between the A412 roundabouts and over the Grand Union Canal and Gade River. This will then follow the disused Croxley rail alignment (which will be double-tracked) to Watford High Street then on to Watford Junction. Intermediate stations will now be built at Ascot Road (to mitigate the loss of the Watford terminus) and Watford Hospital. The map below shows a more geographical overview of the link.

The Croxley Rail Link Geographically

Savings and Loan

The reduction in project cost from an approximate £170m in 2008 to £115m today is one that both the DfT and Herts have trumpeted. From the DfT’s perspective, it conveys nicely the impression that the Men from Marsham have managed to curb the excesses of an excited Local Authority and bring some transport nous to bear. For Herts it suggests something relatively similar – that they are taking their role as project sponsor seriously and are prepared to compromise to achieve their aims.

In reality, however, the difference between the cost in 2008 and today is actually far less than it seems, for much of that saving has actually come about simply because the project is now at a far more advanced stage of planning and development than it was three years ago. As a result, its not the cost of building the Croxley Rail Link that’s dropped massively – it’s the cost of covering the risk. Put simply (and indeed as it is with most major rail projects), Herts had originally asked the DfT to include £60m to act as an insurance policy against the unexpected, and now that the project has been far more tightly scoped this figure can be far smaller – closer to £8m.

As a result, the current forecasted cost breakdown is now as follows:

The majority of Herts’ contribution will come at the front end of the project, with the DfT unlikely to provide any actual funds before 2013 at the earliest.

Herts’ contribution will largely come from a 25 year loan secured against future council tax receipts. At first glance this may appear to be Tax Increment Funding, but this isn’t the case. In fact, London Underground have agreed to remit the completed extensions profits above operating costs back to Herts County Council until the loan has been repaid. It is these that Herts will use to meet the loan payments which will run to about £1.4m a year.

Breaking the Project Down

Although the bulk of the cost reduction overall has come from the reduction in risk, as was suggested above, there have been considerable efficiencies elsewhere. That these don’t manifest as greater savings is largely down to the fact that, after the additional project scoping, it has become apparent that Herts’ initial proposal underestimated the costs by almost £20m. A good proportion of this is due to the need to provide a new electrical substation that they’d originally hoped to do without, but it is also because it seems they’d hoped that London Underground would agree to DLR style unstaffed stations and a reduced level of line signalling – neither of which London Underground was prepared to do.

Those savings found show just how closely the project scope has been pruned.

In track and stock terms, more of the existing rail infrastructure and ballast will be reused. The planned turnback at Watford Hospital will also not be built and instead the line to Watford will be retained and used for stabling. This will be potentially less resilient from a service perspective. The viaduct will also only have one maintenance walkway rather than two, and indeed serious thought was apparently given to making it single, rather than double tracked – although ultimately this was rejected as having too severe an effect on service resilience. Herts will also pay for a single new unit of S-Stock. Serious thought was apparently given to dropping this, which would have meant reducing the service levels to 4tph, but this was was seen as too much of a compromise.

It’s with the stations, however, that most of the scope trimming has taken place. Originally, platform lengthening had been planned for Watford High Street and on platforms 1 and 2 at Watford Junction. This was because it was anticipated that the trains would overhang the platforms – something that goes against Network Rail’s standards. Network Rail have agreed, however, that in this case alternate safety arrangements can be made and those extensions now won’t be built.

Various other economies will also be made in terms of construction and improvement of the new stations. The buildings at Watford Hospital will be smaller, and there will be less CCTV coverage. There will be shared staff accommodation across the extension as well, minimising the need for building space. The level of finishing at all stations will be reduced and modular, preconstructed building segments used wherever possible. The canopy at Ascot Road will also be reduced in length. Platform furnishings – such as additional benches – will also be kept to an absolute minimum.

Finally, there will be an interesting level of recycling on the extension – it appears that both the ticket machines and other assets from Watford Station will likely reappear at Ascot Road.

In essence, the Croxley Rail Link has been designed to meet the absolute minimum standard established by London Underground for their infrastructure.

Proving A Point

Overall, therefore, the Croxley Rail Link will represent an interesting infrastructure experiment. Those expecting something comparable to the work carried out by TfL on the Overground are likely to be disappointed, for as can be seen from the above this is very much a project that demands the absolute maximum bang from every buck.

It is important to remember, however, that in many ways the simple fact that the Croxley Rail Link is proceeding at all is something to be celebrated. The Croxley Rail Link represents proof that it’s not just Britain’s cities that should dare to think bigger when it comes to public transport projects.

The Croxley Rail Link will open up a new, better interchange at Watford Junction – although the effectiveness of that link will be partially dependent upon the number of WCML trains that stop there. It also potentially leads to a reopening of the debate on a Watford Junction to Amersham link, although given the pressure on the Underground’s resources this must be seen as a very low priority. Should it be successful, it also opens up a potential world of possibilities with regards to road relief in the area and indeed general rail services beyond Amersham.

At its most basic level though, the Croxley Rail Link will be of definite benefit to Watford, and if nothing else, its tight scoping and somewhat rough and ready natures seems likely to finally provide a definitive answer to an all-too-frequently asked question:

”It costs HOW MUCH to build a basic station these days?!”

Prizes are not yet finalised but we’ve got a selection of books picked out and a couple of unique items that can’t be bought. We’ll be trying to bully London’s finest transport providers into adding to that pot over the next few days.

How to Enter

To enter send your answers to quiz@londonreconnections.com with the word “quiz” in the subject line somewhere. You are, of course, welcome to post your guesses as comments on the post, but that won’t be considered a valid entry and, as always, don’t assume that the comments are correct! As last year once again demonstrated, the widely accepted answers in the comments aren’t always the right ones.

And Now the Questions!

Q1: This unit of 1938 tube stock is making a transport promise that ultimately it will be unable to keep – what is it?

1938 Tube Stock, courtesy Mikey A

Q2: Where in London will you find this orphaned engine?

An Orphaned Engine, courtesy Unravelled

Q3: Built at the end of the 19th Century, I would later be described by Betjeman as a sad terminus of blighted hope. I was one of several London stations with a hotel as part of my frontage, although this was damaged in the Second World War and never really rebuilt. Even though I’d seen electric services since 1925, by that time I was already in decline. I would make it past my centenary though before Thameslink finally sealed my fate.

Which station was I?

Q4: At which Nordic sounding place of rest can you find this park within a park?

On Yer Bike!

Q5: What happened here in 1926 and again in 1999?

We are the Lions…

Q6: Below Burgundy Thompson, an American nursing student, describes her aunt’s activities on a fateful day for Britain’s railways. Who was her aunt?

The ones that she treated, she had a lipstick in her pocket, and she would puts “x”s on the treated, “MS” meaning she gave them morphine sulphate, and then if they had some kind of wound she circled the wound with the lipstick until she ran out of lipstick.”

Q7: Which film, featuring this policeman, concludes with a dangerous chase across a tube line?

A Proper Copper

Q8: How many of Crossrail’s new stations would they describe as being “cut and cover” constructions?

Q9: Looking up, where are we?

No Roads Here

Q10: Omnibustically speaking, what does Commissioner Pete do that Cliff and Reg didn’t?

Q11: Can you name this mystery Line beneath the Capital – shown with it’s originally planned extensions (a bonus point for each “???” you can name)?

The Mystery Line

Q12: Whilst assuming a posture to avoid detection, at a terminus point that is not a terminus on a line that was and never was – where are we?

Q13: Where exactly was this driver’s eye views taken (and for a bonus point, from what rolling stock)?

Mind the Gap, couresy MD

Q14: Lurking octagonally near Limehouse, which transport system was this power station built to serve?

A Lurking Octagon

Q15: What was this site previously?

Maybe when we’re rich…

And that’s it! Merry Christmas Everybody!