Idea for Watford DC Lines to NLL/ELL connection

[swt_passenger]

I've dug up a PDF presentation about the NLL upgrade from 2009, which shows the original plan for Camden Road. Slide 6 succinctly explains why this was dropped.

Still strikes me as an obvious connection to make, though I'm not privy to all of TfL's journey data that's extrapolated from oyster/contactless fares. Being able to see all the passenger flows would help answer both the question of Watford DC to Euston and ELL connection via Primrose Hill.

TfL don’t appear at all interested in diverting via Primrose Hill. What do they know though...

 

[Dr_Paul]

I agree that some of the ideas expressed on this thread are a bit, well, ambitious, such as another tunnel under Hampstead Heath. On the other hand, I don't think that quadrupling the line through Camden Road to the junction to the west of the station would be that difficult. It would entail the demolition of a couple of buildings and some rebuilding of existing disused infrastructure, but that's all (compare that with what HS2 threatens to knock down not so far down the road.) Reopening Primrose Hill and having a Watford Junction to (for example) Stratford service through Primrose Hill would not be too difficult to arrange either: that's more a question of providing sufficient paths than one of infrastructure.

 

[mr_jrt]

Is that particular tunnel that ambitious? It's (IIRC), about half the length of the proposed Euston tunnels for HS2, and those have been bid at £740m, so let's round that to £500m for simplicity. What that buys you is a route for freight from Ripple Lane to Acton Wells (or Hendon!) without having to consume any line capacity on the GEML (Woodgrange Park to Stratford), NLL (Stratford to Camden Road), WCML (Camden Road to Willesden Junction), or MML (Gospel Oak to Cricklewood). That sounds pretty worthwhile to me...depending on a) how much freight there is, and b) how many more services you could run on those other lines if the freight paths weren't there. The NLL in particular being why it's being mentioned.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that particular tunnel that ambitious? It's (IIRC), about half the length of the proposed Euston tunnels for HS2, and those have been bid at £740m, so let's round that to £500m for simplicity. What that buys you is a route for freight from Ripple Lane to Acton Wells (or Hendon!) without having to consume any line capacity on the GEML (Woodgrange Park to Stratford), NLL (Stratford to Camden Road), WCML (Camden Road to Willesden Junction), or MML (Gospel Oak to Cricklewood). That sounds pretty worthwhile to me...depending on a) how much freight there is, and b) how many more services you could run on those other lines if the freight paths weren't there. The NLL in particular being why it's being mentioned.

Aside from the NLL, relieving those short stretches of line does little for capacity on the lines as a whole. The freight still needs to run north of Willesden on the WCML, east of Woodgrange Park on the GEML, and north of Cricklewood on the MML. Indeed there is very little freight anyway that comes around the corner to / from the MML.

Besides the cost of the Euston tunnels is just the contractors' costs for the tunnels. Not the land (add 5-10%), nor anything in them (several £M per km) nor connecting to them, nor the cost of getting to the point where work can start (design, consents; add 10-20%). Nor the cost of managing the project itself.

 

[swt_passenger]

I've dug up a PDF presentation about the NLL upgrade from 2009, which shows the original plan for Camden Road.

The page showing the initial ideas for the Camden Rd layout reflects the early intention to run a 6 tph through NLL service, with peak extras from Stratford terminating in a central terminating platform at Camden Rd. That scenario was never needed, because TfL and NR eventually came up with today's timetable which IIRC has 8 tph through trains in the peaks, and 6 tph through otherwise.

Recent announcements by TfL have mentioned an increase to a 10 tph through NLL service in the peaks, so it looks as if if with hindsight the proposed work at Camden Rd wasn't strictly necessary.

 

[jopsuk]

Thoughts:

So I was a little dismissive, but if properly doing this then the Bakerloo does need "dealt with"- as that would then help allow level boarding on both lines. Dealing with it would need a new depot location, yes.

Anyway, if all the other issues were dealt with (including the London Outer Freight Orbital line) an interesting add on would be (and the station spacing is ok for this) reopening Maiden Lane on the Overground and York Road on the Picadilly, and connecting them by passages - possibly with moving walkways.

In dafter bits: the resulting section of the BALL and Watford/ELL lines would be a bit annoying. You'd have to pick a platform trusting the information screens to get the next train. Otherwise you face seeing a train arrive and depart without you from across the tracks.

But dealing with this would be madness. You'd need flyovers at Camden and Dalston, and would need to rebuild the stations as twin islands (they're all outer+island configuration). More or less a total rebuild.

Also we've all forgotten to add "somehow route from New Cross down to Bromley North, calling all stations including Lewisham"

 

[Ronnie268]

In dafter bits: the resulting section of the BALL and Watford/ELL lines would be a bit annoying. You'd have to pick a platform trusting the information screens to get the next train. Otherwise you face seeing a train arrive and depart without you from across the tracks.

But dealing with this would be madness. You'd need flyovers at Camden and Dalston, and would need to rebuild the stations as twin islands (they're all outer+island configuration). More or less a total rebuild.

The only people who would have a choice of NLL/ELL would be those travelling from Camden to Canonbury/Dalston - I doubt that would be enough of a market to warrant pairing tracks by direction. I think a next train indicator would definitely be sufficient for those (especially given you'd be increasing the frequency considerably between Camden and Dalston). For others, they'd know whether they wanted to go to Stratford or Surrey Quays, so they'd be able to choose a platform decisively anyway.

 

[simple simon]

Extending some ELL trains to the bay platform at Willesden Junction (routed via Primrose Hill) would be a great idea. I dont know how it would work, unless one platform at Highbury & Islington became bi-directional or a reversing track (for ELL trains not being extended beyond here) was built west of this station.

Also, since the line through Caledonian Road and Barnsbury is now four tracked, with the two outer tracks being used as freight loops where goods trains sometimes wait for passenger trains to pass, so there would not be the space for a dedicated set of ELL tracks too.

You would also need to reinstate the northern pair of platforms at Camden Road, and possibly build one more track alongside the existing pair immediately to the west of the station. This would allow more simultaneous train movements in and out on the western side of Camden Road stn.

What would not be a good idea is reducing or ending the dc service to Euston. Passengers value this and use it.

With (soon) four trains an hour Euston - Watford plus the Bakerloo to Harrow & Wealdstone there is little scope for even more trains on this line. The signalling can barely cope with the present service!

Simon

 

[Andrew1395]

Blimey only 4TPH north of Harrow? Rubbish service, when I first commuted on the Line it was 4TPH to Euston alone, then you had the bakerloos, the Broad Streets and the Croxley Broad Streets and the Bushey starters. What you need is a nice tunnel with a travelator between Kenton & Northwick Park. A cheap way of integrating the DC and Watford Met line services. People are quite happy to walk miles underground at places like Green Park. The DC into Euston is vital during all the lash ups on the WCML (and future HS2 disruption). Often it's the only way to get to Watford Junction. Reinstating a full layout at Watford will allow trains to start and terminate at Watford with the DC bringing people from Euston.

 

[dlj83]

This was the original plan for the East London Line extensions

 

[D365]

This was the original plan for the East London Line extensions

Think you've duplicated the second image there.

Finsbury Park is an interesting one but since the Victoria has gone to 36tph it would be totally redundant now.

 

[Dr_Paul]

That's interesting -- I didn't know about the possibility of taking the ELL up to Finsbury Park. That would be a good idea, as it would allow for a north to east and north to south-east connection that has never previously existed. There would be problems, however, with operations in that this service would have to cross the NLL at some point around Canonbury, and is not the Canonbury curve only single track these days?

 

[Class 170101]

Canonbury curve is single track now. Its also used as a regulating place for freight waiting paths between the ECML and NLL in both directions.

 

[MarkyT]

Canonbury curve is single track now. Its also used as a regulating place for freight waiting paths between the ECML and NLL in both directions.

Also for ELL services to get to the Canonbury curve for Finsbury Park, they'd have to cross all NLL services, both freight and passenger, on the flat. Terminating at Highbury and Islington, by contrast, involves no conflict with other services at all.

 

[Class 170101]

And the interchange at Highbury for the Victoria / Northern City Line is adequate. I don't think there are any facilities to terminate at Finsbury Park anyway. When Broad Street was open these services carried on from Finsbury Park to Hertford North / Welwyn Garden City.

 

[MarkyT]

Note also that with the line between Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington in cuttings, with numerous overbridges, and with HS1 tunnelled just below, affordable new grade separation solutions to solve the conflict problem getting ELL to Finsbury Park are not practical.

 

[dlj83]

I'm guessing the ELL would have used the lower terminating platform at Willesden Junction.

Maybe one day they will extend from Peckham to Wimbledon as seen in the second image.

 

[simple simon]

And the interchange at Highbury for the Victoria / Northern City Line is adequate. I don't think there are any facilities to terminate at Finsbury Park anyway. When Broad Street was open these services carried on from Finsbury Park to Hertford North / Welwyn Garden City.

In addition they went to Alexandra Palace / Edgware / High Barnet, all via the now disused platforms at Highgate station.

 

[yeti]

Rather than extending the ELL through Primrose Hill, have a Stratford to Willesden Junction shuttle use the route terminating in the bays there. The NLL through Hampstead Heath could then be an extension of the ELL. They would be segregated from each other by the ELL bridging the shuttle east of Camden Town ( plenty of room) which would allow the incline up from the ECML to join the line to Willesden Junction.
The big advantage is that freight could be more easily dovetailed into a simple shuttle with conflicting movements only at the Stratford end. The smaller amount of freight from Stratford to GWML and the MML could use the GOBLIN joining it at South Tottenham and then joining the extended ELL at Gospel Oak.
The extra infrastructure would be the flyover east of Camden Town and the short section of four tracking west of Camden Town.
Both freight capacity and passenger capacity would be increased across north London with a small amount of extra infrastructure.

 

[D365]

My apologies if it’s obvious but the above post makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Class 170101]

I think Yeti is suggesting extending the ELL via Hampstead Heath and running a Stratford to Willesden Jn Low Level via Primrose Hill. And building a flyover a Camden Road (Note not Camden Town which is on the Northern Line).

That suggestion is not viable as there is very limited capcfity between Stratford and South Tottenham for freight to be routed this way as was discovered when the NLL was closed for 6 months between Stratford and Gospel Oak some years back. WA services to / from Stratford were diverted via Seven Sisters and Hackney Downs to Liverpool Street during the off peak to make room between Stratford and South Tottenham for the diverted freights.

More realistic would be ELL services extended to Willesden Jn Low Level via Primrose Hill using the southern pair of tracks with NLL routed to use the northern pair of tracks - reinstated through Camden Road but one would lose the regulating point on the NLL for freight in both directions that currently exist.

 

[Ianno87]

I think Yeti is suggesting extending the ELL via Hampstead Heath and running a Stratford to Willesden Jn Low Level via Primrose Hill. And building a flyover a Camden Road (Note not Camden Town which is on the Northern Line).

That suggestion is not viable as there is very limited capcfity between Stratford and South Tottenham for freight to be routed this way as was discovered when the NLL was closed for 6 months between Stratford and Gospel Oak some years back. WA services to / from Stratford were diverted via Seven Sisters and Hackney Downs to Liverpool Street during the off peak to make room between Stratford and South Tottenham for the diverted freights.

More realistic would be ELL services extended to Willesden Jn Low Level via Primrose Hill using the southern pair of tracks with NLL routed to use the northern pair of tracks - reinstated through Camden Road but one would lose the regulating point on the NLL for freight in both directions that currently exist.

You'd have a spectacular view of London from the flyover east of Camden Town (the existing NLL already gives a decent view of St Pancras etc.). It would a colossal structure, also having to straddle the ECML, MML and possibly the HS1 connections too.

Problem is that also gives a heck of a lot of London a spectacular view from afar of lofty 378s! Sightlines and all that.

 

[swt_passenger]

Most of these regular NLL/ELL threads eventually explain that there’s little point of running the ELL via Primrose Hill, and that expensive infrastructure changes would be necessary at Camden Rd to do that. And such suggestions almost always ignore that it isn’t a four track railway, it’s two track with outer freight loops.

So complicating matters even more by swapping the ELL AND NLL positions over within the four track formation? The mind boggles, to be honest...

 

[yeti]

In answer to the problems raised and hopefully not causing any more boggling-

Firstly where I am suggesting for an extended ELL to begin to rise to cross over the NLL is to the east of the bridge over the ECML. The area used to contain many sidings up till the 1980s and this can be seen on google earth. there is also a wide embankment on the south side giving further width. The bridge would be for ELL trains only. The existing points to the west of Camden Road would stay for freight movements if necessary. Look at the bridge at New Cross Gate for the ELL to see what space is needed for inclines and curves onto the bridge - I know that bridge is for a single track.

On the question of freight conflicting with the WA accessing the GOBLIN route from Stratford, the majority of freight movements would be along the NLL to Willesden and when the WA is quadrupled to Broxbourne as planned the fast tracks will be on the east side presumably rising to cross the line line down to Stratford to join the Chingford line.

In the Channelsea area at Stratford end of the NLL there is one goods loop on a formation built for two. This can be seen on google earth next to Carpenters Road. Two goods loops here could be used for train regulation between the GEML and the NLL. My idea is to increase the flow of both freight and passenger trains along the NLL which means keeping them moving at a constant rate so no loops half way along.

 

[Bald Rick]

There simply isn't enough space to build such a flyover.

 

[swt_passenger]

So we currently have an 8 tph peak NLL service, (and TfL now want to increase that to 10 tph).
If the NLL service is swapped over to the Primrose Hill route - where do they all go when they reach the merge point with the Bakerloo at Queens Park? This just isn't reasonable or practical.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

So we currently have an 8 tph peak NLL service, (and TfL now want to increase that to 10 tph).
If the NLL service is swapped over to the Primrose Hill route - where do they all go when they reach the merge point with the Bakerloo at Queens Park? This just isn't reasonable or practical.

As TfL has plans for even more trains between Stratford and Camden Road, the easy solution is to send the additional trains via Primrose Hill to the bay platform at Willesden Junction. If there is need for more trains between Willesden Junction and Clapham Junction - the second most heavily patronised section of the route - it will soon be possible to extend trains from Barking towards Willesden.

 

[swt_passenger]

..it will soon be possible to extend trains from Barking towards Willesden.

Possible certainly but there's no evidence of any intention to do that whatsoever. They wouldn't be able to call at Gospel Oak for a start.
I'd put my money on any additional NLL services above the present 8 tph running though to Clapham Junction or Richmond.

Regular passenger services via Primrose Hill will remain a trainspotter's dream. I'm out.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Possible certainly but there's no evidence of any intention to do that whatsoever. They wouldn't be able to call at Gospel Oak for a start.
I'd put my money on any additional NLL services above the present 8 tph running though to Clapham Junction or Richmond.

Regular passenger services via Primrose Hill will remain a trainspotter's dream. I'm out.

Yes, we all know the current situation, but as traffic trends evolve, so too will the thinking of the decision makers.

 

[D365]

What benefits does running NLL services to Watford via Primose Hill offer over the status quo? The only that springs to mind is removing services from Euston during the rebuild, which as it turns out isn’t an imperative for HS2 construction.