Old Oak Common Station construction

[Grumpy]

Glancing through today's Daily Mail (someone had left it in the Morrison's café)it claimed that the station was costed at £1bn. Not seen a cost quoted elsewhere.
(cue anti-Daily Mail rants from the usual suspects)

Edit-just seen confirmation of this on the HS2 Stations revealed thread

 

[mr_jrt]

Having more than 2 platforms means you can remove a lot of services from Marylebone though...

 

[si404]

What ones would you remove? And what would you replace them with at Marylebone?

 

[swt_passenger]

AIUI Chiltern to OOC is only a future proposal by NR, from one of the route studies. It isn’t likely to be showing up in any detailed designs at this stage.

 

[pdeaves]

AIUI Chiltern to OOC is only a future proposal by NR, from one of the route study. It isn’t likely to be showing up in any detailed designs at this stage.

Chiltern provision would be the subject of a separate project. It is not part of the HS2 interchange scheme, though the latter will not preclude the former.

 

[Ianno87]

What ones would you remove? And what would you replace them with at Marylebone?

And why would you want to remove services from Marylebone, rather than run more services overall?!

 

[si404]

And why would you want to remove services from Marylebone, rather than run more services overall?!

Indeed! I think your question is best addressed to mr_jrt as it is him who is talking about removing services from Marylebone without mentioning replacement...

 

[cle]

I never got the impression it was specifically about relieving Marylebone. Yes that would happen by default, but the aim was always to offer the connections of OOC to the Chiltern line.

Unless more four-tracking was done, the capacity would be finite - and these could well be existing paths north of South . Ruislip, and so would only unlock more via Amersham! Maybe to AVP and MKC...

It would need additional quad capacity between South Ruislip and Gerrards Cross at minimum, plus Denham platforms, Beaconsfield lines and better lines/platform situation at High Wycombe. Either way that should all be done.

 

[mr_jrt]

I was thinking merely in terms that Marylebone isn't exactly renowned for being the best connected of termini. Moving all of the mainline services to OOC is the obvious starting point. Once upon a time these would of course have been GWR's Birmingham services running into Paddington, so it's more of a homecoming, so to speak.

As the others have mentioned, you have finite capacity on the line via Wembley Park, so I would be severely tempted to propose moving most if not all of the Oxfords and Bicester North services as well. That leaves Marylebone with just the residual Amersham and the High Wycombe metro services. Interventions between Ruislip and High Wycombe could hopefully maximise capacity for making the most of those, and/or you just move the High Wycombe services to OOC as well...Chiltern managed with only 4 platforms at Marylebone for a very long time, so having 4 at OOC and having the residual Amersham and Ruislip metro services using the 6 at Marylebone should mean plenty of capacity.

Arguably, you could even consider extending the Met to Aylesbury and closing the line between Northolt Junction and Neasden Junction, and the line and Marylebone station south of Finchley Rd. Obviously that's not going to happen any time soon, (not least because of the depot at Wembley!), but long-term, who knows? Maybe you do things the other way around and move all the non-mainline services to OOC, extend the Met, but retain the lines and platforms at Marylebone purely for the mainline services.

Point is just that there are options to consider long-term.

 

[paok]

Unless more four-tracking was done, the capacity would be finite - and these could well be existing paths north of South . Ruislip, and so would only unlock more via Amersham! Maybe to AVP and MKC...

It would need additional quad capacity between South Ruislip and Gerrards Cross at minimum, plus Denham platforms, Beaconsfield lines and better lines/platform situation at High Wycombe. Either way that should all be done.

South Ruislip to Denham Golf Club would be relatively easy to four track but between Denham Golf Club and Gerrards Cross there are two massive viaducts, Chalfont Viaduct No. 1 over the M25 and Chalfont Viaduct No. 2 over the A413. The costs involved to four track that section would be eye-watering.

 

[edwin_m]

OOC potentially gives Chiltern better links to Crossrail and Heathrow. There's also the possibility that a Heathrow Southern link might replace the current HEx paths by something that continues through Heathrow to Staines and beyond, thus also giving the Waterloo suburban routes access to HS2 northwards without having to get the Tube across London.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

South Ruislip to Denham Golf Club would be relatively easy to four track but between Denham Golf Club and Gerrards Cross there are two massive viaducts, Chalfont Viaduct No. 1 over the M25 and Chalfont Viaduct No. 2 over the A413. The costs involved to four track that section would be eye-watering.

The Welwyn Viaduct on the ECML is also two-track, and it manages to carry 11tph in the off-peak, and 17tph during the (morning) peak.

The Chiltern line, at Chalfont Viaducts Nos. 1 and 2, currently has 7tph in the off-peak, and 9tph in the (evening) peak.

I would therefore wager that, since the total section of double track would have to be, say, two thirds of a mile at worst (from measuring the distance on Google Maps), it would be eminently feasible to quadruple other sections of the line without the Viaducts becoming an impossible bottleneck. Make no mistake - it would probably become the main bottleneck on the line, just as the congested Neasden South Junction to Marylebone section is now (or arguably the Marylebone throat itself), but an increase of several trains per hour to nearer what Welwyn has is perfectly achievable, given other upgrades (and especially if electrification happened, and/or signal sections were shortened).

 

[si404]

I was thinking merely in terms that Marylebone isn't exactly renowned for being the best connected of termini. Moving all of the mainline services to OOC is the obvious starting point.

How is OOC better on that aspect?

OOC is very good for E-W to the City and Docklands but has no N-S variance (I guess, but doubt it would be allowed, that you can board HS2 trains to Euston to have one-change to the Kings Cross area). Marylebone is walkable from Oxford Street (unlike Paddington, let alone OOC), has a N-S tube axis across the West End (so Theatreland, Trafalgar Square, Waterloo, Charing Cross, etc are easily accessible) with cross-platform interchanges to Green Park, Westminster, Victoria, London Bridge, Canary Wharf, and a shortish walk to Baker Street for Kings Cross, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, etc.

I'd argue that OOC is better for commuters (no more walking to Baker Street), but worse for leisure users.

I would be severely tempted to propose moving most if not all of the Oxfords and Bicester North services as well.

So, from Oxford, there's trains to OOC via HW, and trains to OOC via Reading that continue to (poorly-sited, but better connected) Paddington. The 'two different routes to London' concept has gone under your plan.

And from Birmingham/Warwickshire there's either the slow services via HW to OOC, or the super fast ones to Euston via OOC. HS2 will abstract a lot of traffic from Chiltern Mainline services, but this is the way to make it nearly all!

For non-commuter passengers, Marylebone is better than OOC. And Oxfords are not really commuter flows, nor the Mainlines. Bicester North (which isn't a terminus) can have the Banbury semi-fast diverted to OOC for commuters who want that.

----

A place to look at for similar is the WAML. Cambridges and Stansteds go to Liverpool Street, the mid-distances go to Stratford (but most stops have Liverpool Street service) and the inners go to Liverpool Street, save for (not yet there) those served by the inner-boosting Stratford service.

2tph mid-distance (Aylesbury via HW, and Banbury) diverted to OOC, replacement 2tph out of Marylebone can either boost the commuter service to places OOC can't reach, or add more leisure service to Oxford/Warwickshire (or both), additional xtph out of OOC to boost commuter/mid-distance service.

 

[edwin_m]

How is OOC better on that aspect?

OOC is very good for E-W to the City and Docklands but has no N-S variance (I guess, but doubt it would be allowed, that you can board HS2 trains to Euston to have one-change to the Kings Cross area). Marylebone is walkable from Oxford Street (unlike Paddington, let alone OOC), has a N-S tube axis across the West End (so Theatreland, Trafalgar Square, Waterloo, Charing Cross, etc are easily accessible) with cross-platform interchanges to Green Park, Westminster, Victoria, London Bridge, Canary Wharf, and a shortish walk to Baker Street for Kings Cross, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, etc.

I'd argue that OOC is better for commuters (no more walking to Baker Street), but worse for leisure users.So, from Oxford, there's trains to OOC via HW, and trains to OOC via Reading that continue to (poorly-sited, but better connected) Paddington. The 'two different routes to London' concept has gone under your plan.

And from Birmingham/Warwickshire there's either the slow services via HW to OOC, or the super fast ones to Euston via OOC. HS2 will abstract a lot of traffic from Chiltern Mainline services, but this is the way to make it nearly all!

For non-commuter passengers, Marylebone is better than OOC. And Oxfords are not really commuter flows, nor the Mainlines. Bicester North (which isn't a terminus) can have the Banbury semi-fast diverted to OOC for commuters who want that.

----

A place to look at for similar is the WAML. Cambridges and Stansteds go to Liverpool Street, the mid-distances go to Stratford (but most stops have Liverpool Street service) and the inners go to Liverpool Street, save for (not yet there) those served by the inner-boosting Stratford service.

2tph mid-distance (Aylesbury via HW, and Banbury) diverted to OOC, replacement 2tph out of Marylebone can either boost the commuter service to places OOC can't reach, or add more leisure service to Oxford/Warwickshire (or both), additional xtph out of OOC to boost commuter/mid-distance service.

I don't think there would be any intention to divert many existing Marylebone services to OOC - not least because it sounds like Chiltern would get only one platform! The OOC services would most likely be additional, getting round the constraint of limited platform space at Marylebone. Neither station has brilliant Underground connectivity but the choice between them is better than either on its own. So probably no more than a couple of trains per hour, perhaps even replacing the MK-Aylesbury-Wycombe-Marylebone that was talked about under East West Rail but seems to have been dropped. Sending it to OOC instead provides a one-change link to Heathrow and the GWML for all the stations it serves, none of which have that now.

 

[ess]

How difficult will it be to add a connection between OOC station and the Central Line at one of the Acton stations (or close North Acton and add OOC maybe)

 

[swt_passenger]

How difficult will it be to add a connection between OOC station and the Central Line at one of the Acton stations (or close North Acton and add OOC maybe)

Ruled out by TfL in earlier consultations, they say it isn't practical. (IIRC earlier discussions said there's nowhere straight and level enough for new platforms.) Slight problem is we've got other separate threads where 'local connections' to Old Oak common, eg via TfL's new NLL and WLL station are also being discussed.

 

[camflyer]

Video of the construction works at Old Oak Common

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Seems a bit of a wasted opportunity not to build OOC further north to connect with Willesden Junction. Also surprised there’s no station on the Central Line between North and East Acton, as it passes close by.

Is there any more news about the vague proposal to extend LO services from Clapham to Balham?

 

[camflyer]

Glancing through today's Daily Mail (someone had left it in the Morrison's café)it claimed that the station was costed at £1bn. Not seen a cost quoted elsewhere.
(cue anti-Daily Mail rants from the usual suspects)

Edit-just seen confirmation of this on the HS2 Stations revealed thread

A billion for OOC seems a reasonable amount when that is what it has cost to rebuild London Bridge. Tottenham Court road will be also be about a billion. Bank will be over half a billion as was the new Crossrail station at Canary Wharf and the Kings Cross development. Stations a very expensive to build especially underground and when live services are operating through the site.

 

[Chris125]

Seems a bit of a wasted opportunity not to build OOC further north to connect with Willesden Junction. Also surprised there’s no station on the Central Line between North and East Acton, as it passes close by.

Look at how long the station box is, there isn't room to have it further north even if there was suitable empty land - it would also take it further away from it's principal interchange with Crossrail.

 

[higthomas]

What I'd say they should get is some king of airport like people mover connecting old oak commom, willseden junction, the overground stations and North Acton central line station.

Never gonna happen though.

 

[mr_jrt]

North Acton's platforms could be moved a few hundred metres east though, and with a new entrance it'd only be stone's throw from Old Oak Common Lane's entrance. Not sure if a Hackney-style walkway would be feasible though...and there *will* be a people mover between OOC Lane and Willesden Junction - it's called the North London Line!

 

[TheWalrus]

Is every high speed service going to stop here? Otherwise it is going to to cause delays to the following service if it isn’t due to call.
Will high speed services need to cross the slow lines to use a platform?

 

[si404]

Is every high speed service going to stop here? Otherwise it is going to to cause delays to the following service if it isn’t due to call.

Any non-stopping service has the ability to overtake a stopping service at OOC, but yes, every (maybe a couple per day don't) HS2 service will stop here, due to the benefits of stopping here applying to all trains (access to Docklands, Heathrow, etc, relief of Euston and it's tube station) and if you non-stop one, you have to non-stop rather a lot due to pathing issues.

(The GWML hasn't been worked out - there's less of a problem non-stopping a train, due to 4 tracks into Paddington, and less benefit as the Elizabeth line stops at Paddington, however I'd imagine that if any stop, pretty much all of them will).

Will high speed services need to cross the slow lines to use a platform?

What slow lines? Are you talking about the GWML? It's confusing as 'high speed' suggests HS2, not the GWML Intercity services. However, whatever you are talking about, the answer is no.

Every track will have a platform - there's no need to cross other tracks (though there's diverges and merges due to the multiple platforms per line per direction) on any service.

Platform numbers are to be something like:
1,2,3 - HS2 southbound
4,5,6 - HS2 northbound
<proposed Chiltern platforms>
7,8 - Elizabeth line eastbound
9,10 - Elizabeth line westbound
11,12 - GWML Mains eastbound
13,14 - GWML Mains westbound

 

[hwl]

Any non-stopping service has the ability to overtake a stopping service at OOC, but yes, every (maybe a couple per day don't) HS2 service will stop here, due to the benefits of stopping here applying to all trains (access to Docklands, Heathrow, etc, relief of Euston and it's tube station) and if you non-stop one, you have to non-stop rather a lot due to pathing issues.

(The GWML hasn't been worked out - there's less of a problem non-stopping a train, due to 4 tracks into Paddington, and less benefit as the Elizabeth line stops at Paddington, however I'd imagine that if any stop, pretty much all of them will).
What slow lines? Are you talking about the GWML? It's confusing as 'high speed' suggests HS2, not the GWML Intercity services. However, whatever you are talking about, the answer is no.

Every track will have a platform - there's no need to cross other tracks (though there's diverges and merges due to the multiple platforms per line per direction) on any service.

Platform numbers are to be something like:
1,2,3 - HS2 southbound
4,5,6 - HS2 northbound
<proposed Chiltern platforms>
7,8 - Elizabeth line eastbound
9,10 - Elizabeth line westbound
11,12 - GWML Mains eastbound
13,14 - GWML Mains westbound

But the proposed platform numbering is south to north in the station design so GWML westbound are 1 & 2 etc.

All the GWML tracks have 2 platforms per line to enable everything to stop without losing line capacity, like the Charing Cross lines at London Bridge but overtaking would lead to huge dwell times for stopping services so stopping is likely to be the norm.
The aim is extend all the terminating Crossrail services west from Paddington to OOC.

 

[coppercapped]

But the proposed platform numbering is south to north in the station design so GWML westbound are 1 & 2 etc.

All the GWML tracks have 2 platforms per line to enable everything to stop without losing line capacity, like the Charing Cross lines at London Bridge but overtaking would lead to huge dwell times for stopping services so stopping is likely to be the norm.
The aim is extend all the terminating Crossrail services west from Paddington to OOC.

I can understand the desire to extend the Crossrail trains that terminate at Paddington to OOC, but one wonders how will that work in practice?

There are two possible scenarios: the trains will be extended past OOC to <wherever> or they will reverse there. If the latter then two of the Crossrail platforms will be taken up by reversing trains, which is one less than the number of reversing sidings currently at Westbourne Park (two dead-end sidings and one through siding). If things go pearshaped than things might get a bit congested, but I presume that the Westbourne Park facilities will still be there and could be used if necessary.

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

(Incidentally, one of the benefits of the rebuilt Reading station is that, like London Bridge, it now has two platform faces per track so the theoretical signalling headway between Paddington and Reading can be more fully utilised without incoming trains having to wait for a free platform).

 

[pdeaves]

If the latter then two of the Crossrail platforms will be taken up by reversing trains,

There are three reversing sidings planned. Thus, reversing trains clear the platforms quickly before carrying out the actual reversal.

 

[edwin_m]

There are three reversing sidings planned. Thus, reversing trains clear the platforms quickly before carrying out the actual reversal.

At Paddington the intention was, and may still be, not to check terminating trains to be clear of passengers but to continue forward after a "normal" station stop with any overcarried passengers either brought back to Paddington (if the train comes straight back) or offloaded at a special platform at Westbourne Park. This manouvre was to be carried out in driverless ATO mode while the driver changed ends. All this was circa 2009 so may have changed, but if it hasn't it illustrates how turnarounds at OOC could work.

One disadvantage of terminating at OOC compared to Paddington is that trains running to/from depot can enter/leave passenger service at Paddington, but to do so at OOC would involve two reversals.

 

[Trailfinder]

I attended the HS2 information event on OOC in Ealing last week.
I suggested that connectivity of the station could be much improved by extending Crossrail to a terminus at Park Royal on the line between OOC and Ruislip. This station would then become a major interchange between the Central, Piccadilly and Crossrail lines.
Even before HS2 was thought about Crossrail should have terminated there rather than the ridiculous Paddington / Westbourne Park arrangement.

 

[edwin_m]

I attended the HS2 information event on OOC in Ealing last week.
I suggested that connectivity of the station could be much improved by extending Crossrail to a terminus at Park Royal on the line between OOC and Ruislip. This station would then become a major interchange between the Central, Piccadilly and Crossrail lines.
Even before HS2 was thought about Crossrail should have terminated there rather than the ridiculous Paddington / Westbourne Park arrangement.

Potentially Chiltern too! But not sure if there is space either for the station itself or to keep the connection out of OOC towards this route.