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

Is Brent Cross an important destination? It was in my childhood when it had the only John Lewis and Fenwick outside of Oxford St, but even then it was all car and bus, and generally demand was from north of it. In this eComm vs Westfield era, it’s pretty tragic.

I like orbital schemes but it does feel a little like the train from nowhere to nowhere. Perhaps the connectivity will make it, certainly OOC is the star but if interchanges are good then maybe Harlesden and Neasden could be useful too. On the western end, it could do better than Hounslow. Staines or even aiming for Heathrow T5 via the Southern access, if ever happens.

Bollo Lane hasn’t been defined really either.

mr_jrt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Extra platforms at West Hampstead won't be necessary if they do what they should have done decades ago when Thameslink and the Heathrow spur were first being considered: between Cricklewood and West Hampstead, construct a flyover taking the Hendon Lines from west to east of the formation. This would mean the fast lines are now the western-most pair of tracks at West Hampstead - and therefore the lack of platforms is unimportant - the slow lines use the middle pair of tracks and the Hendon Lines have the eastern pair with its platforms already in place.

This arrangement would also enable a new DMU service from Feltham etc to link up with GOBLIN via Carlton Road Junction, thus improving connectivity. The service could perhaps terminate at Harringay West.

Personally, rather than a flyover that would introduce a massive bottleneck on the (completely full) MML slow lines between Carton Road and West Hampstead I think a tunnel from the Hendon lines side at the site of the former Finchley Road (Midland) to just east of Gospel Oak, with underground platforms at Gospel Oak and optionally at Belsize Park tube is the ideal as it then provides a segregated route all the way, introduces some useful connectivity, and provides a freight bypass of the NLL.

If you were going to go to all the expense of a flyover you may as well do it properly and switch to paired by direction and move the fasts to the outer lines or the inner lines, i.e. Up Fast, Up Thameslink, Up Local, Down Local, Down Thameslink, Down Fast, a-la the Met/Jubilee line or the other way around a-la the ECML. You'd probably want to do this all the way out to Kettering and have a flyover at Glendon Junction, but I digress. Adding in a few missing platforms on the Hendon lines is always going to be dramatically cheaper, especially when you consider one of the two at each station already exists thanks to the adjacent fast line.

Ethano92 said:

How many round trips could be done with current battery technology?

Click to expand...

May not be an issue, because the trains will be able to charge their batteries on the section between South Acton and Acton Wells (or maybe just half of that unless they also end up being equipped with a pantograph as well as shoes) and at Kew Bridge or the Hounslow route. Not a huge run of track, admittedly, but I'd imagine it's much easier to upgrade existing infrastructure so a BMU can pull lots more current to recharge than do it from scratch.

cle said:

Is Brent Cross an important destination? It was in my childhood when it had the only John Lewis and Fenwick outside of Oxford St, but even then it was all car and bus, and generally demand was from north of it. In this eComm vs Westfield era, it’s pretty tragic.

I like orbital schemes but it does feel a little like the train from nowhere to nowhere. Perhaps the connectivity will make it, certainly OOC is the star but if interchanges are good then maybe Harlesden and Neasden could be useful too. On the western end, it could do better than Hounslow. Staines or even aiming for Heathrow T5 via the Southern access, if ever happens.

Bollo Lane hasn’t been defined really either.

Click to expand...

Yes to me it feels like a solution looking for a problem.

You are only realistically going to get an extra 4tph over Bollo Lane. More, people should be expected to change trains. Kew Bridge is fine, so is West Hampstead.

I guess it's a rather imperfect solution that's being designed the way it is because it's cheap.

One thing that somewhat concerns me is that this route would add quite a few new flat junctions to lines that must already be constricted by existing flat junctions. I wonder if a better solution at the Southern end would be to build a new interchange station where the North London/District lines cross the Hounslow loop line. That has the additional benefit of connecting the Hounslow loop with the District line as well as the North London line. Then look into how you might get frequency improvements between Willesden Junction and Richmond - I wonder if that would give most of the benefits of the new line - possibly even more cheaply.

Reopened to enable @brewer85 to post an update

Thanks mods for reopening the thread . It seems the most relevant one to discuss the West London Orbital.

A recent IanVisits on indicates that the West London Orbital Railway is 'likely' to get approval, albeit not opening until the 2030s

Last year, Transport for London (TfL) was awarded funding to cover the costs of feasibility studies into the line, and the Mayor of London’s office says that work on those studies is “nearing completion”, and that a “viable West London Orbital service is expected to be achievable”

Click to expand...

That report links into a response to a mayoral question here

Timetable assessment undertaken by Network Rail is nearing completion and has identified that a viable West London Orbital service is expected to be achievable
...
A contract for engineering design support is expected to be awarded shortly, following a competitive procurement process
...
an updated business case for the scheme and confirmation of the stations to be served, train frequency and traction power, and will allow other strategic decisions to be made early next year

Click to expand...

On the topic of traction power, TfL's strategic narrative document was published in 2021, and one of the benefits cited in the doc is "providing a convenient and accessible alternative to driving, using electric or battery trains" (which implies no DMUs).

The same document indicates much of the funding is likely to be sought in developer contributions, from the numerous new housing builds along the route; and from personal observation, they certainly do seem to be packing them in, in Hounslow, Acton and Brent Cross.

I see that the tram "extension" to Sutton is going to terminate at Sutton Station, rather than continuing to the Royal Marsden Hospital at Belmont, which has been proposed in the past.

The Royal Marsden Hospital is an important traffic objective, and I would have thought that there will be sufficient demand from staff, patients and visitors to make a tram service worthwile.

duncanp said:

The Royal Marsden Hospital is an important traffic objective, and I would have thought that there will be sufficient demand from staff, patients and visitors to make a tram service worthwile.

Click to expand...

Funding for a turnback siding at Belmont will allow for 4tph to keep up with demand from the hospital.

duncanp said:

I see that the tram "extension" to Sutton is going to terminate at Sutton Station, rather than continuing to the Royal Marsden Hospital at Belmont, which has been proposed in the past.

The Royal Marsden Hospital is an important traffic objective, and I would have thought that there will be sufficient demand from staff, patients and visitors to make a tram service worthwile.

Click to expand...

Possibly may change with the relocation of Epsom and St Helier A&Es merging to the new Sutton Hospital site at Marsden.

Then again if you can get a tram to A&E you probably shouldn’t be there.

I wonder how the Chiswick NIMBYs will feel about the additional crossing closures on Bollo Lane

ijmad said:

I wonder how the Chiswick NIMBYs will feel about the additional crossing closures on Bollo Lane

Click to expand...

They probably won't like it although I imagine they also dislike some of the new blocks of flats that have gone up in recent years.

I'm still not sure what this line is for? It doesn't seem to link any main traffic generators/destinations nor major junctions for interchanges. With the down side of adding multiple conflicts in and presumably restricting freight operations over the junctions and hiding a train on the Dudding Hill line awaiting a path?
Do you reckon the 1.6-2.3 benefit cost ratio has enough slack for cost rises?

Meerkat said:

I'm still not sure what this line is for? It doesn't seem to link any main traffic generators/destinations nor major junctions for interchanges. With the down side of adding multiple conflicts in and presumably restricting freight operations over the junctions and hiding a train on the Dudding Hill line awaiting a path?

Click to expand...

I suspect it's a case of, the line is there and therefore you can adapt it for passenger use a lot more cheaply than if you had to build a brand new line from scratch, which rather lowers the bar for how useful the line has to be in order to be worth doing. But it does still feel to me a bit like, proposing it without much thought because the line is there rather than trying to figure out what the best way to improve connectivity in that part of London would be.

In the line's defence, it will make it easier for a lot of people in NW/SW London to get to Old Oak Common, since it'll save people on Thameslink/Jubilee/Metropolitan lines from having to travel to West Hampstead to change and some people in SW London from having to go via Richmond or Clapham Junction. I guess that also means it'll relieve pressure on the North London/West London lines, which are likely to become very overcrowded once Old Oak Common opens.

But your point about conflicting moves is a good one. I still believe a better solution that would vastly increase travel opportunities would be to run the route to Richmond, and build a new station in between South Acton and Gunnersbury to provide interchange with the District/Piccadilly lines (possibly, closing South Acton and Chiswick Park). And also move Gunnersbury station a bit further South so it can provide interchange with the SWR Waterloo-Hounslow route.

As an aside, I also think the line would become massively more useful if it was extended at the Northern end to connect with the Northern line, maybe at Brent Cross. But I realise that would be a huge new-build that would massively increase costs.

But who does it serve at the SW end as its on the Hounslow loop, not the main Windsor/Reading lines?
The supposedly OOC serving station - where is it going to go? Either it only serves the new line and not the NLL or it will be squeezed between two junctions, using up lots of path space, built on a bridge, and not very convenient for getting access to OOC or anywhere.

I agree with @Meerkat - This line doesn't add anything to what the District already gives SW London, and doesn't massively help with NW London over West Hampstead options. It will massively penalised freight operators in the wrong place.
This is another example of TfL trying to run a metro by stealing other people's tracks. The NLL and WLL prove that Overground and freight services do not mix terribly well. Acton Wells Junction will be a nightmare if this plan goes ahead.

Meerkat said:

But who does it serve at the SW end as its on the Hounslow loop, not the main Windsor/Reading lines?
The supposedly OOC serving station - where is it going to go? Either it only serves the new line and not the NLL or it will be squeezed between two junctions, using up lots of path space, built on a bridge, and not very convenient for getting access to OOC or anywhere.

Click to expand...

I think this station being part of the WLO is great news for the possibility of adjacent NLL platforms at OOC Lane, sharing the same access arrangements, within a reasonable walk of the HS2/GWML station. WLO and NLL platforms would all be north of Acton Wells Junction on their respective lines.

zwk500 said:

I agree with @Meerkat - This line doesn't add anything to what the District already gives SW London, and doesn't massively help with NW London over West Hampstead options. It will massively penalised freight operators in the wrong place.
This is another example of TfL trying to run a metro by stealing other people's tracks. The NLL and WLL prove that Overground and freight services do not mix terribly well. Acton Wells Junction will be a nightmare if this plan goes ahead.

Click to expand...

Definitely a problem using ever more of London's connective orbital freight links for LO. Frequent passenger service monopolising every traditional regulation point means nowhere left to hold freights, departmental traffic and empty stock movements operating between radial main lines. Acton Wells area probably needs some more track to help remove conflicts.

MarkyT said:

Definitely a problem using ever more of London's connective orbital freight links for LO. Frequent passenger service monopolising every traditional regulation point means nowhere left to hold freights, departmental traffic and empty stock movements operating between radial main lines. Acton Wells area probably needs some more track to help remove coconflicts.

Click to expand...

Good luck building anything!

Here's a letter I sent to a magazine... I can't remember if they printed it.

++++++++
The proposed London Overground interchanges at Old Oak Common are inconvenient, and inadvisable for Heathrow passengers with luggage late at night. Problems:

1) The Southern service to and from the West Coast Mainline passes no platforms between Wembley and Shepherds Bush, and although platforms could be added at Willesden Junction, the route passes 450m from OOC and there are no plans for platforms there, leaving the southern WCML with no decent Heathrow route.

2) The West London Line Overground service operates as a branch of the North London Line, but this route between North London and West London is too circuitous to be much use: e.g. the TfL Journey Planner route for Camden Road to Shepherds Bush is usually to walk to Camden Town and get the tube, with no hint of the "direct" train. Keeping the WLL as part of the NLL allows disruption to spread between the two with little benefit.

3) The proposed West London Orbital service using the Dudding Hill line between Brent Cross West and Hounslow fails to interchange with the WLL, since the proposed OOC stations for the two lines are 900m apart.

4) Trains from OOC to the eastbound NLL would be quarter-hourly from each of two different stations 700m apart, both of which are 350m from the Crossrail station.

Solution: if the northern third of the West London Orbital became part of the WLL, and the southern two-thirds of the West London Orbital became part of the NLL, good interchange between the two could occur at Willesden Junction.

Trains from Brent Cross West could serve a new station at Craven Park before using a new curve near Harlesden Station down onto the Willesden Relief Lines used by the Southern service. After calling at a new platform at Willesden Junction, a new curve could take trains southwards and then straighten to allow WLL/Southern platforms passing under the proposed Hythe Road station (which would not be built). After the platforms, the line would curve east over the Great Western Mainline and then south to rejoin the current WLL/Southern alignment towards Shepherds Bush.

The NLL from Willesden Junction could use the current WLL curve towards the Hythe Road site, where it would curve south and west over the new WLL (twice) and over the GWML to new platforms along the south side of the Crossrail station, and then curve southward to rejoin the existing NLL alignment towards Acton Central. This would carry eight trains an hour in each direction, 4 between Stratford and Richmond and four between Stratford and Hounslow.

The WLL/Southern platforms would be tens of metres from the HS2 platforms and the NLL platforms would be tens of metres from the Crossrail platforms, allowing a unified safe station. Routes from Willesden High Level Junction to Acton Wells Junction and from West London Junction to Mitre Bridge Junction would probably be kept for freight, being flatter than the new routes.

This is more expensive than current plans! But the levelling of 2 square miles of land which is full of railways in slightly the wrong place is an opportunity that must be seized or we will regret it for a century.
+++++++

zwk500 said:

Good luck building anything!

Click to expand...

Maybe quadding over the bridge across the Ruislip lines, so any freight between Acton and WCML or MML doesn't conflict with NLL - Richmond trains?

MarkyT said:

Maybe quadding over the bridge across the Ruislip lines, so any freight between Acton and WCML or MML doesn't conflict with NLL - Richmond trains?

Click to expand...

Assuming you're talking about this bridge:

It's just about possible but You're very close to the Industrial units. However the biggest question is how many conflicts would you be resolving? Cricklewood-Kew trains would still conflict with everything, and GWML-NLL trains wouldn't be helped at all. GWML-Wembley/SLL trains would still be conflicting with the WLO trains as well. It's a lot of money for small improvement.
Really you need a flyover, but yeah good luck getting space for that.

zwk500 said:

Assuming you're talking about this bridge:
View attachment 133052
It's just about possible but You're very close to the Industrial units. However the biggest question is how many conflicts would you be resolving? Cricklewood-Kew trains would still conflict with everything, and GWML-NLL trains wouldn't be helped at all. GWML-Wembley/SLL trains would still be conflicting with the WLO trains as well. It's a lot of money for small improvement.
Really you need a flyover, but yeah good luck getting space for that.

Click to expand...

That's the one. Would have been useful for the diverted Southampton intermodals avoiding Oxford currently! Even an additional single line might be useful there at lower cost. They'd conflict with the proposed WLO service clearly but not with the NLLs which in combination with the WLOs no doubt will be a major problem through current junctions without some intervention. I'd send the Dudding Hill LOs to Ealing Broadway instead of Hounslow.

MarkyT said:

That's the one. Would have been useful for the diverted Southampton intermodals avoiding Oxford currently! Even an additional single line might be useful there at lower cost. They'd conflict with the proposed WLO service clearly but not with the NLLs which in combination with the WLOs no doubt will be a major problem through current junctions without some intervention.

Click to expand...

I'd mused about a third line allowing Freight to slide down the side in the office before, but for freight alone the cost isn't really justified - maybe if the area was being totally resignalled.
Anything going GWML<> NLL (which is a fair amount) would conflict with the Overground trains there.

MarkyT said:

I'd send the Dudding Hill LOs to Ealing Broadway instead of Hounslow.

Click to expand...

No room on the GW Reliefs for that.

Class43 said:

Possibly may change with the relocation of Epsom and St Helier A&Es merging to the new Sutton Hospital site at Marsden.

Then again if you can get a tram to A&E you probably shouldn’t be there.

Click to expand...

Staff & visitors would welcome a tram to the hospital even if some patients have arrived by ambulance.

Khan definitely seems railway friendly.

Class43 said:

Possibly may change with the relocation of Epsom and St Helier A&Es merging to the new Sutton Hospital site at Marsden.

Then again if you can get a tram to A&E you probably shouldn’t be there.

Click to expand...

Plenty of reasons you might make your own way to A&E with a perfectly legitimate need for urgent medical attention.

May I ask why two very different proposals are grouped into the same thread?

Existing traffic on the West London Line will seriously constrain its ability to carry people between Clapham Junction and Old Oak Common. That reduces the interchange possibilities between the ex Southern Region and HS2 to the tube, once Euston opens.

Anything that can dilute that traffic load is extremely helpful.