• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

West London Orbital line and Sutton Tram extension added to Mayor’s Transport Strategy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
20 Mar 2018
Messages
103
If the line could swing round to a terminus at Acton Town, rather than heading SW then getting into Heathrow Airport would get a lot easier for a lot of people,
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Railguy1

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2016
Messages
116
Sorry for being cynical but isn’t this yet another desperate attempt to find a justification to use an existing line, just because it is there?
Bodging together “we need more public transport” and “existing line” even if there is no real match.

Seems to me it adds congestion onto congested lines, particularly through flat junctions, without really connecting anywhere that needs connecting.
Just spend the money improving the cramped interchange routes at Willesden Junction and finally putting platforms on every route at West Hampstead with covered travelators between them

Brent Cross is being redeveloped and I believe as part of that development, will see a new Thameslink station. So this will help serve the new communities there. If Old Oak Common regeneration is to be a success, there needs to be services which link to it. Again, this helps. Lastly, orbital routes have proved to be extremely popular in London, and there is no reason to suggest this won't be the same.

Regarding your point about linking West Hampstead, its a complete impossibility now - new flats were erected some time ago. The only way to link the three stations now would be to tunnel underneath them and I have no idea what's under there. Needless to say, it will be very expensive. It might be possible to build some sort of footbridge connecting the overground and underground stations - again very expensive. Nothing will happen to West Hampstead for the the foreseeable future.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
The only way for it to be a proper interchange would be for the connections to be tunnelled.
It’s very expensive but would create so many connections
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
West Hampstead is already an adequate interchange, it just requires a short walk on street no further than would be required through any 'trainside' passageways. It's not like Hackney where the connecting walkway significantly reduces the distance.
 
Last edited:

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
It needs under cover travelators for it to be considered a real interchange by normal folk.
They don’t want to be tipped out onto an urban street to find their own way, particularly in that London after all the stabbings on the news!
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
Sorry for being cynical but isn’t this yet another desperate attempt to find a justification to use an existing line, just because it is there?
Bodging together “we need more public transport” and “existing line” even if there is no real match.

Seems to me it adds congestion onto congested lines, particularly through flat junctions, without really connecting anywhere that needs connecting.
Between Acton Wells Junction and Cricklewood, the line is not at all congested. It sees very few trains. The Hendon lines are not busy either.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
Bear in mind I threw this together well over 10 years ago (so who knows what developments on the ground have changed in the meantime!), but still: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KsAJrWWXW3-_uOEJzjKmWzVddNs&usp=sharing

Basically, moving the MML and NLL platforms east of the road so all three stations are as close as they could possibly be. You can then have a single large ticket hall with walkways over to each platform. Boom, proper interchange.
 

gottago

Member
Joined
15 May 2012
Messages
61
It needs under cover travelators for it to be considered a real interchange by normal folk.
They don’t want to be tipped out onto an urban street to find their own way, particularly in that London after all the stabbings on the news!
I'm pretty sure "normal folk" consider it a real interchange already given they use it to interchange in their droves. It's well signposted on street level and you're out of station for all of a few minutes. Obviously a direct interchange would be ideal but the current set up certainly won't be putting anyone off who needs to use it.

I can't imagine many people are too afraid of stabbings in such an affluent area of London...
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
Basically, moving the MML and NLL platforms east of the road so all three stations are as close as they could possibly be. You can then have a single large ticket hall with walkways over to each platform. Boom, proper interchange.
No chance. They've just spent serious money on the Midland station and they're still spending it on the NLL station.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
I can't imagine many people are too afraid of stabbings in such an affluent area of London...
And what's to stop this endless bloodbath from occurring in some dimly lit corner of a station passageway rather than on the street
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
No chance. They've just spent serious money on the Midland station and they're still spending it on the NLL station.
If they ever seriously rebuild the LU station perhaps they could relocate the entrance to the other side of the road. That would avoid having to cross any roads at all* between the Jubilee and LO lines, and it's about 100m between the entrances, not even a train length.
* apart from the service access to the new apartment blocks on that side which is virtually traffic free as the development is designated to have zero parking spaces (actually a very small number are provided for disabled, deliveries, tradesmen carrying out work and a short term hire service for residents).
 
Last edited:

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
See attached image. Station platforms groups indicated by line colour. New pedestrian connections shown yellow. New grade separated road avoiding Bollo Lane crossings shown red.
There's already a footbridge currently under construction over most (but not all) of your proposed route in red: https://expedition.uk.com/projects/chiswick-park-footbridge/. The idea behind this to provide better access to the business park from Chiswick Park station and also hopefully reduce crowding at Gunnersbury by splitting the customer loads.
Sorry for being cynical but isn’t this yet another desperate attempt to find a justification to use an existing line, just because it is there?
I agree, to an extent, however rail access between North London and North West/West London is shockingly poor. I wonder how many people drive just because of the poor public transport position. I might be biased but in my old job I was pretty much forced to drive because the only usable public transport option involved going via Zone 1 which took ages and my other half currently has the same problem.

The issue I see with this proposed link, is that it doesn't go East enough. If it could tap in to the fairly affluent parts of North London, at least going over as far as the areas served by the two Northern line branches, it might be more useful.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
There's already a footbridge currently under construction over most (but not all) of your proposed route in red: https://expedition.uk.com/projects/chiswick-park-footbridge/. The idea behind this to provide better access to the business park from Chiswick Park station and also hopefully reduce crowding at Gunnersbury by splitting the customer loads
As far as I can make out, the new bridge link is actually quite a modest affair up at the northern apex of the triangle as shown here in yellow.
chiswick2.jpg
I could see the office park landlords being very pleased if Chiswick Park station transferred to the Piccadilly with frequent Heathrow trains stopping there. I don't think this bridge itself would be of much use as part of an OSI to a notional new LO station on the west arm of the triangle to replace Gunnersbury, but the assumed pedestrian path improvements to access it from Bollo Lane could be us helpful.
 

Dr_Paul

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
1,355
... if Chiswick Park station transferred to the Piccadilly with frequent Heathrow trains stopping there.

That would be rather complicated and very expensive, as it would involve rebuilding the station in order to have a centre platform for the Piccadilly line.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
That would be rather complicated and very expensive, as it would involve rebuilding the station in order to have a centre platform for the Piccadilly line.
The Piccadilly is due to take over the whole of the District service to Ealing Broadway in a few years time, so that has to be addressed anyway.
 

Dr_Paul

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
1,355
The Piccadilly is due to take over the whole of the District service to Ealing Broadway in a few years time, so that has to be addressed anyway.

I didn't know that. Presumably Piccadilly services would have some that stopped at some or all stations between Hammersmith and Acton Town, and some that run non-stop.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
I didn't know that. Presumably Piccadilly services would have some that stopped at some or all stations between Hammersmith and Acton Town, and some that run non-stop.
I don’t think TfL ever got into that level of detail but some would certainly have to call at additional stations, I would expect Turnham Green. The transfer was in the mayors strategy in 2017, and results from the Piccadilly upgrade to 33 tph needing another western terminus to soak up the additional trains. The displaced District Line trains would still be running west of Earls Court but be shared 50/50 between Richmond and Wimbledon.
 

moley

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2011
Messages
270
Likehood is that Turnham Green will become full time stop on Piccadilly line. Between Turnham Green and Chiswick Park will need to be a new crossover from the Pic to existing District lines. I would expect service pattern to be Turnham Green - Chiswick Park - Acton Town continuing to Ealing Broadway/Rayners Lane Uxbridge or Turnham Green - Acton Town continuing to Heathrow.

Essentially splitting the Pic after Turnham Green rather than after Acton Town as at present.

The problem that remains is that Ealing Common depot will then not be on the District Line
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Likehood is that Turnham Green will become full time stop on Piccadilly line. Between Turnham Green and Chiswick Park will need to be a new crossover from the Pic to existing District lines. I would expect service pattern to be Turnham Green - Chiswick Park - Acton Town continuing to Ealing Broadway/Rayners Lane Uxbridge or Turnham Green - Acton Town continuing to Heathrow.

Essentially splitting the Pic after Turnham Green rather than after Acton Town as at present.

The problem that remains is that Ealing Common depot will then not be on the District Line
There’s a suggestion by LU_timetabler in an earlier thread in the LU subforum:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/piccadilly-line-to-ealing-broadway.157702/
...that a new flyover will be provided from the westbound local for District line entry to Ealing Common depot.
 

USBT

Member
Joined
5 Nov 2017
Messages
121
If the line could swing round to a terminus at Acton Town, rather than heading SW then getting into Heathrow Airport would get a lot easier for a lot of people,

If there’s a station/interchange at Old Oak Common (as proposed) then you could connect to Heathrow there, via CrossRail, HEX, or whatever the Heathrow Southern Access come up with.
 

BlyRF

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
57
Have there been any updates to the Business case for the West London Orbital?

And will it be most likely it'll turn into a london over ground route?
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,211
Have there been any updates to the Business case for the West London Orbital?

And will it be most likely it'll turn into a london over ground route?

The current issue of Modern Railways (page 8) states that TfL have published the strategic outline business case. Currently envisaged as a single or two 4tph routes operated by 4-car DMUs.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
If the line could swing round to a terminus at Acton Town, rather than heading SW then getting into Heathrow Airport would get a lot easier for a lot of people,

You would be better off using the existing route towards Acton Main Line on Great Western and interchanging there for Heathrow rather than Acton Town.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
For me, I’m struggling to understand the benefits of trains going towards Brent Cross. I suspect a platform off the back of the Down Fast (eg on the up Hendon) at West Hampstead would be best for all the connections there.

I’d also say there’s no benefit to trains going to Hounslow when they can just use a platform face at Kew Bridge on the ‘Clapham-facing’ curves. Some small track layout changes would allow freight to go both ways on the Barnes-bound line with one crossover at New Kew; and wouldn’t block the single lead to Old Kew.

Stations at South Acton, Acton Central, ‘Old Oak Common’, Harlesden, Neasden and Gladstone Park should prove sufficient. If the scheme succeeds and there’s clear evidence of a need for Hounslow and Brent Cross then that could just be added later.
 

Ethano92

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2017
Messages
415
Location
London
How many round trips could be done with current battery technology? Could the new Brent cross station be built with a few terminating platforms rather than just one so trains can sit there and charge, saying that as mentioned above, a route travelling south to West Hampstead would probably be preferred, could similar be done there? I feel if that happens they should really push to stop the met and Chiltern there too.

I don't think DMUs are very forward thinking. I know they want to open it as soon as possible but if battery or other technologies aren't there yet (I don't know if they are) why not wait to find funds to electrify the route before opening it rather than a repeat of the GOBLIN where people are used to the line and then disrupted consistently for quite some time.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
How many round trips could be done with current battery technology? Could the new Brent cross station be built with a few terminating platforms rather than just one so trains can sit there and charge, saying that as mentioned above, a route travelling south to West Hampstead would probably be preferred, could similar be done there? I feel if that happens they should really push to stop the met and Chiltern there too.
I doubt there's room for more platforms at West Hampstead. Stubs of line were left (and restored after the upgrade works!) for the Hendon lines, but two platforms is pretty much your lot unless you are able to start re-acquiring land from the car park/buildings adjacent. Two is probably sufficient though. Would be nice to get est Hampstead rebuilt properly (it's doable, abet massively expensive!), so everything stopped there in an integrated fashion, but being realistic, it isn't going to happen. :(

For me, I’m struggling to understand the benefits of trains going towards Brent Cross. I suspect a platform off the back of the Down Fast (eg on the up Hendon) at West Hampstead would be best for all the connections there.

I think it's because the massive Brent Cross redevelopment should make it worthwhile, or at the very least, will give an excuse to wring some more out of the developers.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
I doubt there's room for more platforms at West Hampstead. Stubs of line were left (and restored after the upgrade works!) for the Hendon lines, but two platforms is pretty much your lot unless you are able to start re-acquiring land from the car park/buildings adjacent. Two is probably sufficient though. Would be nice to get est Hampstead rebuilt properly (it's doable, abet massively expensive!), so everything stopped there in an integrated fashion, but being realistic, it isn't going to happen. :(



I think it's because the massive Brent Cross redevelopment should make it worthwhile, or at the very least, will give an excuse to wring some more out of the developers.

I am aware of the development, but looking at the general state of rail in the area I’m somewhat sure that to start with a West Hampstead - Kew Bridge service would mean people can change at WH for Thameslink services north.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
I am aware of the development, but looking at the general state of rail in the area I’m somewhat sure that to start with a West Hampstead - Kew Bridge service would mean people can change at WH for Thameslink services north.

I think another issue favouring Brent Cross/Hendon is that several of the proposed West London line stations already have services that go to West Hampstead! So directing West London line trains there is somewhat restricting the new journey opportunities compared to going to Brent Cross. Add to that that Brent Cross is already a very important destination in its own right that is appallingly badly served by rail (though I'm not sure if the proposed new station is close enough to the shopping centre to really resolve that?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top