Dear Rachel Blake MP,
 
I am writing to you to hopefully secure your support for my petition about the noise level emanating from the Jubilee Line north of Baker Street, which affects us residents in the Marylebone area. The purpose of this petition is to seek an urgent and permanent solution by TFL to the noise issue.
 
The petition, including updates, has some 188 signatures to date and can be viewed at https://www.change.org/Train_noise_Marylebone
Support by you to directly appeal to the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, and the TFL commissioner, Andrew (Andy) Lord Commissioner, would be most helpful, as would circulation of the petition to those in power who could assist the cause.
 
 
Background:
 
The problem:
 
A recent soundcheck in Balcombe Street conducted by TFL showed a level at 43 db in my home, which is considerably more than WHO’s recommended level of 30dB. Interestingly, TFL’s recording picked up the rumbling sound 19.2 mts below ground, whereas I am some 80-100 mts away from the Jubilee line itself, which goes under Dorset Square, Linhope and Ivor Place amongst other streets in NW1.
 
Evidence supporting the 30 dB(A) recommendation:
The WHO's recommendation at World Health Organization (WHO)  is based on a review of scientific research showing that noise levels above 30 dB(A) can trigger physiological and psychological responses that disrupt sleep, even if the person doesn't fully wake up. This can lead to: 
 
Reduced sleep quality: Noise can shift sleep from deeper to lighter stages, reducing the restorative quality of sleep.
Difficulty falling asleep: High noise levels can increase the time it takes to fall asleep.
Long-term health risks: Chronic sleep disturbance is associated with a range of health issues, including cardiovascular problems and cognitive impairment.
 
Health & wellbeing:
Whilst TFL’s remit is to keep London moving, it should not be at the expense of residents' health. The pressure on TFL to run more trains at higher speeds means  less time to schedule urgent track maintenance, let alone replacement of tracks and the deployment of noise reducing materials, as can be qualified, below.
 
As with the historic pollution problem of London, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, successfully initiated a welcome low emission zone system, which greatly improved the health of Londoners whilst also reducing travel congestion. This cause is very much a similar issue about the health of its residents.
Clearly there are priorities as to where funds are spent on the underground, but the health and wellbeing of residents must override the capacity maximization on the underground if funds are not there to properly invest and maintain the system, and done with urgency.
 
Ground noise issue:
 
Due to the differences in the composition of the grounds composition, noise  can be transmitted several hundred meters away from the source and even up to a kilometre, according to TFL and AI research.
Nature of the sound: The sound's quality can matter more than its volume. A constant drone might be less distracting than a sporadic, intermittent, or high-frequency noise, which can be particularly annoying and is in many cases. 
 
TFL do acknowledge the problem and advise complainants what they are doing to combat it including grinding and lubrication, but they only have 2 old grinding machines for the entire network and it is simply not the answer.
TFL did, according to AI, grind the Jubilee tracks, in part, in 2016 & 2024, so it simply doesn’t work for very long and is not a permanent fix.
 
According to AI, the noise issue is structural: The problem of ground-borne noise is due to vibrations transmitted through the ground and tunnel structure, especially on curves like the one approaching Baker Street. Slowing the train might slightly reduce kinetic energy, but it doesn't address the core issue of how vibrations are transmitted through the track and ground.  I am sure TFL would confirm this, as the inspector who attended my home referred to it.

Age and maintenance of fleet: The Jubilee line's existing fleet is nearly 30 years old and requires frequent and extensive maintenance. In 2023, TfL actually had to temporarily reduce the number of trains running because the trains were overdue for overhaul.

Why traditional methods may fail according to AI:
 
     Focus on the wrong frequency: Grinding and lubrication are excellent for addressing high-frequency squealing caused by friction on curves. However, the ground-borne noise that affects residents is typically a low-frequency "rumble" that these methods don't address well enough.

Campaign groups and London Assembly members have raised concerns about the condition and effectiveness of Transport for London's (TfL) track grinding machines, suggesting they are outdated and contribute to persistent noise issues. 
 
Sources of concern regarding TfL's rail grinding machines
Tube Noise Action Group: This campaign group has been highly vocal about the ineffectiveness of TfL's current noise mitigation efforts, which heavily rely on rail grinding. Their complaints suggest that the machines may be too old or not sufficiently advanced to provide a long-term solution to the structural noise problems.
London Assembly scrutiny: During regular sessions, London Assembly members often question the Mayor and TfL about the ongoing tube noise issue. Transcripts from these meetings reveal concerns that grinding is merely a temporary solution and not an effective long-term fix for ground-borne noise and vibration. In response to a query about rail grinding, TfL admitted in a statement that grinding and milling are "not effective long-term methods for reducing noise and vibration" and are "predominantly used to maximise rail life and reduce the risk of rail defects".
Engineering vs. cosmetic: The suggestion that the machines are "old" often comes from the observation that the track grinding appears to be more of a cosmetic fix than a deep, structural one. Rail grinding primarily addresses surface roughness, or "corrugation," which causes high-frequency noise. It doesn't solve the low-frequency, ground-borne vibrations that affect residents living above the tunnels. The criticism is not necessarily that the machines are physically broken but that they represent an outdated, single-solution approach to a complex problem.
TfL's response to the criticism
Acknowledged limitations: TfL has acknowledged that rail grinding is not a complete solution for noise. It has committed to exploring other, more advanced technologies, such as resilient track fastenings and floating track slabs, which are better suited for addressing ground-borne vibration
Obstacles:
    Sytem integration, according to AI: The Jubilee line's "moving block" signalling system is optimized for a specific speed and train spacing. Increasing the number of trains would   require, or so I understand, a costly and disruptive software upgrade to redefine the system's timings and spacing, though can be done.

A cost effective way to reduce sound is to reduce the speed of the trains at key pinch points that affect residents, although this requires possibly an upgrade to TFL software and would cause a slowdown in the system.
 
    High capital cost: Buying new rolling stock is extremely expensive, costing hundreds of millions of pounds. In 2017, TfL temporarily paused plans to buy additional Jubilee line trains due to a budget shortfall, a problem that resurfaced later for future expansions. TfL's operating revenue is not enough to cover major infrastructure projects and is heavily dependent on government funding, which has been inconsistent.

    Competing priorities: TfL must also invest in other large-scale projects, such as the Piccadilly line upgrade and the modernization of the District, Circle, Hammersmith & City, and Metropolitan lines. This means that funding is limited and must be distributed among many projects, not just one line

Depot capacity: There isn't enough storage space in the Stratford Market depot to accommodate a larger Jubilee line fleet. Expanding depot capacity would be a massive, costly undertaking involving new construction and land acquisition.

Solutions:

  According to AI research, the most effective way of minimising the rumble is as follows:

 Targeted maintenance: Transport for London (TfL) already uses data to target rail grinding and other maintenance at the noisiest sections of track, such as the section between Baker Street and St John's Wood. Though, as I say, this doesn’t work, or doesn’t work well enough.

  Floating track slabs: This is a much more effective engineering solution for isolating ground-borne vibration. Slabs of track are placed on resilient pads that absorb the train's vibrations, preventing them from transferring to the tunnel and surrounding buildings.

 Resilient rail fastenings: Special fastenings can be used to dampen vibrations at the source, offering a targeted solution without disrupting service. 

  Improving the tunnels using acoustic metamaterials: This is an emerging technology where artificial, microscopic structures are engineered to manipulate sound waves and absorb noise.

  My personal opinion is to slow the trains down in targeted areas until a more permanent solution is enacted.

 
Key actions taken in the past by campaign groups:
 
    Marylebone residents (2016): Residents in the Marylebone area, located between Baker Street and Marylebone stations on the Jubilee and Bakerloo lines, threatened legal action against TfL for what they described as "unbearable" noise. In response, TfL undertook track maintenance, including rail grinding and other engineering work, to mitigate the issue.

A residents' group in Marylebone, specifically focused on the area between Baker Street and Marylebone stations, complained and threatened legal action against Transport for London (TfL) in 2016. While not officially named as a single action group, news reports at the time highlighted the collective complaints from residents about increased and "unbearable" tube noise and vibration. (Note that I was not part of that group).
Key details of the complaint:
    Location: The complaints came from residents living in the areas adjacent to the Jubilee and Bakerloo lines, which run close to the surface between Baker Street and Marylebone stations.

Nature of the complaint: Residents reported that the noise and vibration had become significantly worse over time, disturbing sleep and disrupting their quality of life.

    Action taken: While no formal lawsuit was filed, the residents' complaints and threats of legal action led to TfL conducting track maintenance and engineering work in the area, including rail grinding and rail replacement.

   Formation of larger group: The grievances of these residents contributed to the formation of the Tube Noise Action Group in 2017, a wider campaign group that continues to raise the issue of tube noise with TfL. Essentially, the Marylebone complaints were a major catalyst that brought the issue of ground-borne noise to public attention and prompted action from TfL

Islington residents (2022-2023): Residents and campaigners, including Neil Smith, have pursued noise complaints through the London Assembly and the formal complaints process. This led to TfL acknowledging the problem and increasing its investment in noise reduction.

    Tube Noise Action Group: This campaign group was formed by residents, like Kevin Lee, in response to increased tube noise, including the vibrations near Baker Street. Their work has led to trials of new track fastenings and improved communication from TfL

There has been a successful court case against TFL by residents in Earls Court in 2012, whereby TFL  had to compensate residents for the noise, albeit station noise and not ground source noise.

Here are the key details of that case:

    Location: Residents near Earl's Court station complained that the station's public address (PA) system was excessively loud and disruptive, particularly at night.

    Issue: The public address system was making up to 70 announcements per hour, which residents described as making their lives "hell" and keeping them awake.

    Legal action: The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea issued a noise abatement order under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

    Court outcome: TfL appealed the order, claiming the announcements were vital for passenger safety. However, they later abandoned the appeal and were ordered by West London Magistrates' Court to pay the council's legal costs of £115,000.

It is therefore evident that TFL would defend any legal action against them, so it would require a Class action by us as residents, if we are unable to get them to act.
Nobody wants to bring the underground to a halt but, in my opinion, the lack of proper maintenance and compensation claims may bring it to a halt anyway.
 
It seems that TFL only give lip service to complaints about ground source noise and simply advise complainants about the lack of funds available, lack of equipment and scheduling problems. Action of any kind only occurs when they are pushed.