Should London Overground take over the Watford-Clapham WLL service?

[cle]

There's little sense in the WLL being connected to the NLL anyway. The TFL journey planner typically sends journeys from the NLL to the WLL via other routes because Willesden Junction is such a circuitous route. For instance if you ask it for Camden Road to Shepherds Bush, it might tell you to ride a train which has COME FROM Shepherds Bush to Highbury & Islington, and then get the tube to Shepherds Bush!

The entire 8tph NLL service should go to South Acton, from where half should go to Richmond and half should go (over newly electrified track) to Hounslow. The people of Hounslow would much rather have this than have the West London Orbital service to Brent Cross.

Can 4tph WLL go to Watford / St Albans Abbey, via new platforms on the Relief Lines at Willesden Junction?

The WLL feeds into, and ostensibly is, the NLL route - in passenger terms. More seamlessly than onto the WCML!

If anything, the Richmond route could naturally flow towards Dudding, but it's not even wired or passenger specced. And without the OOC station, you are sending people to nowhere.

Also both routes give Willesden-Stratford high frequency, which is now needed - sometimes up to 10tph, better than many tube branches and always busy.

 

[philthetube]

There's little sense in the WLL being connected to the NLL anyway. The TFL journey planner typically sends journeys from the NLL to the WLL via other routes because Willesden Junction is such a circuitous route. For instance if you ask it for Camden Road to Shepherds Bush, it might tell you to ride a train which has COME FROM Shepherds Bush to Highbury & Islington, and then get the tube to Shepherds Bush!

The entire 8tph NLL service should go to South Acton, from where half should go to Richmond and half should go (over newly electrified track) to Hounslow. The people of Hounslow would much rather have this than have the West London Orbital service to Brent Cross.

Can 4tph WLL go to Watford / St Albans Abbey, via new platforms on the Relief Lines at Willesden Junction?

One big issue is crossing the main lines at Watford,

One question though, could the overground operate it fast down the dc lines, If it departed a couple of mins in front of a stopper would that work,

I have no idea if the track layout allows this.

 

[zwk500]

One big issue is crossing the main lines at Watford,

One question though, could the overground operate it fast down the dc lines, If it departed a couple of mins in front of a stopper would that work,

I have no idea if the track layout allows this.

You can't get from the WLL to the DC lines, and you can't operate fast down the DC lines until you've cleared the Bakerloo line trains. Tbh i doubt you can operate fast at all without catching anything up before Watford Jn.

 

[Basil Jet]

One big issue is crossing the main lines at Watford,

The "slow" lines at Watford are on the St Albans side, so the WLL to St Albans wouldn't have to cross anything except the southbound slow line at Watford and Wembley.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Can 4tph WLL go to Watford / St Albans Abbey, via new platforms on the Relief Lines at Willesden Junction?

The flyunder route from the West London Line to the east side of the WCML formation bypasses Willesden Junction.

 

[Basil Jet]

The flyunder route from the West London Line to the east side of the WCML formation bypasses Willesden Junction.

New platforms on it would be straight and only 68 metres from the end of the high level platforms. I don't know if they'd be level though.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

New platforms on it would be straight and only 68 metres from the end of the high level platforms. I don't know if they'd be level though.

I assume your idea is to build new platforms on the west side of the formation immediately north of the area where the track layout is complex with several junctions. The cost of this and the long connections to the other platforms will be high. Is it worth it?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The West London Line needs serious work done to it. It's pretty overcrowded and Clapham Junction becomes absolutely clogged with people changing from the Southern Metro services to the Overground in the mornings and evenings. Ideally, it needs to be ramped up to the same frequency as the East London Line, but I'm sure the freight traffic will inhibit that.

I'd also like to see new stations added, preferably at Battersea High Street, Fulham/Chelsea, White City and the College Park/North Kensington area

 

[Wolfie]

There's little sense in the WLL being connected to the NLL anyway. The TFL journey planner typically sends journeys from the NLL to the WLL via other routes because Willesden Junction is such a circuitous route. For instance if you ask it for Camden Road to Shepherds Bush, it might tell you to ride a train which has COME FROM Shepherds Bush to Highbury & Islington, and then get the tube to Shepherds Bush!

The entire 8tph NLL service should go to South Acton, from where half should go to Richmond and half should go (over newly electrified track) to Hounslow. The people of Hounslow would much rather have this than have the West London Orbital service to Brent Cross.

Can 4tph WLL go to Watford / St Albans Abbey, via new platforms on the Relief Lines at Willesden Junction?

That might be great for people in Hounslow but l suspect that most current NLL users would, like me, very much prefer the status quo thank you very much.

 

[Basil Jet]

That might be great for people in Hounslow but l suspect that most current NLL users would, like me, very much prefer the status quo thank you very much.

Have you tried the TfL journey planner for a selection of NLL - WLL journeys? I can't say that it's never a useful through service, but I strongly believe splitting them and extending them elsewhere would be a net gain.

 

[miklcct]

but I'm sure the freight traffic will inhibit that.

So re-time the freights to not run in peak hours.

 

[JonathanH]

So re-time the freights to not run in peak hours.

That is a bit too naive. The freights will need to get through somewhere is the peak hours and there aren't extensive sidings to park them up to wait time. Some freight is just as time critical as passenger journeys.

 

[87015]

That is a bit too naive. The freights will need to get through somewhere is the peak hours and there aren't extensive sidings to park them up to wait time. Some freight is just as time critical as passenger journeys.

Can’t really say that on WLL as very little of the priority 1 Channel Tunnel stuff runs. And none of it to promised 92 timings, all shed junk that can’t even get up the bank without being held back for a clear run throwing more capacity away (well, if they admitted it and timed as such anyway)

 

[Railwaysceptic]

So re-time the freights to not run in peak hours.

Can’t really say that on WLL as very little of the priority 1 Channel Tunnel stuff runs. And none of it to promised 92 timings, all shed junk that can’t even get up the bank without being held back for a clear run throwing more capacity away (well, if they admitted it and timed as such anyway)

The West London Line has numerous freight trains carrying unglamorous products like aggregates and cement. This may not be important to some railway enthusiasts but it is to the railway industry and to the country at large. The way to cater for growing passenger numbers is to run longer trains even if that involves platform lengthening or selective door opening.

 

[HSTEd]

A question does have to be asked if hauling a few thousand tonnes of low value commodities (like Aggregates or Cement) very slowly is really a suitable use for a railway through central london that could undoubtedly carry far more passenger trains with far more passengers if they were either higher performance or didn't run.

You wouldn't put aggregate trains through Crossrail or the Victoria Line!

 

[JonathanH]

A question does have to be asked if hauling a few thousand tonnes of low value commodities (like Aggregates or Cement) very slowly is really a suitable use for a railway through central london that could undoubtedly carry far more passenger trains with far more passengers if they were either higher performance or didn't run.

You wouldn't put aggregate trains through Crossrail or the Victoria Line!

The West London Line is never going to need to carry the same number of passengers as Crossrail or the Victoria Line. There are other constraints - eg the platforms and slow approach at Clapham Junction - that would appear to make increasing frequency difficult in any case. There is no way a mass transit system would be laid out like the West London Line if it were being built now.

 

[cle]

The West London Line is never going to need to carry the same number of passengers as Crossrail or the Victoria Line. There are other constraints - eg the platforms and slow approach at Clapham Junction - that would appear to make increasing frequency difficult in any case. There is no way a mass transit system would be laid out like the West London Line if it were being built now.

And yet, usage on it compared to 20+ years ago when they began the 313 service (after the diesel one) - and I used to use it at least a few times a week - shows that build and they will come. So many continuous changes and improvements; West Brompton, through NLL trains, Westfield, Imperial Wharf - and the SLL rework too. Plus above all else, frequency and new trains.

Similarly the NLL was in recent memory just 3tph even in peaks - it's now 10tph and comfortably busy. And with another 8tph between H&I and Dalston, so well-used. Things do change. It's better used than the Thameslink Core off-peak, I would say - especially by Londoners themselves.

Not to say it'll justify 36tph or super long Crossrail car trains, but I think it could comfortably grwo into 12tph of 6 car trains, if OOC came along properly for LO (the next inflection/potential).

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Can’t really say that on WLL as very little of the priority 1 Channel Tunnel stuff runs. And none of it to promised 92 timings, all shed junk that can’t even get up the bank without being held back for a clear run throwing more capacity away (well, if they admitted it and timed as such anyway)

I don't think people quite understand the situation with Channel Tunnel Freight. The paths have been sold and as per the Network Code Channel Tunnel Freight trains have the highest priority and literally cannot be removed from the timetable, even if the paths are not used as the paths have been sold to the International freight Corridor.

Channel Tunnel Freight trains are the most important trains in the timetable along with Eurostar as per the Network Code.

And unless the government repurchases the paths off the International Freight Corridor, which would require them to be up for sale in the first place, it will remain like that forever.

 

[HSTEd]

And unless the government repurchases the paths off the International Freight Corridor, which would require them to be up for sale in the first place, it will remain like that forever.

Given that the state has compulsory purchase powers, whether those paths are nominally up for sale is irrelevant.
The state can simply seize them with fair compensation.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

A question does have to be asked if hauling a few thousand tonnes of low value commodities (like Aggregates or Cement) very slowly is really a suitable use for a railway through central london that could undoubtedly carry far more passenger trains with far more passengers if they were either higher performance or didn't run.

The next question to be asked is what alternative route does not create severe disadvantages and increased costs. The low cost - per tonne - of aggregates and cement does not mean they are unimportant.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Given that the state has compulsory purchase powers, whether those paths are nominally up for sale is irrelevant.
The state can simply seize them with fair compensation.

I don't think you quite understand the how the Network Code works and the legal situation behind it.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think you quite understand the how the Network Code works and the legal situation behind it.

The Network code is ultimately not the point - the point is that paths, like all other tangible or intangible property are ultimately subject to compulsory purchase. If something can be bought or sold, it can be compulsorily purchased by the state.

Even if by some strange legal peculiarity they were not, ultimately the state could simply nationalise the operators to obtain the paths, then re privatise the remainder of the operators.

So the acquiescence of the freight operators is ultimately not required, but it may be desirable for broader political reasons.

 

[The Planner]

The Network code is ultimately not the point - the point is that paths, like all other tangible or intangible property are ultimately subject to compulsory purchase. If something can be bought or sold, it can be compulsorily purchased by the state.

Even if by some strange legal peculiarity they were not, ultimately the state could simply nationalise the operators to obtain the paths, then re privatise the remainder of the operators.

So the acquiescence of the freight operators is ultimately not required, but it may be desirable for broader political reasons.

Legally though it would leave it wide open for a case and your second suggestion would never happen.

 

[Wolfie]

The Network code is ultimately not the point - the point is that paths, like all other tangible or intangible property are ultimately subject to compulsory purchase. If something can be bought or sold, it can be compulsorily purchased by the state.

Even if by some strange legal peculiarity they were not, ultimately the state could simply nationalise the operators to obtain the paths, then re privatise the remainder of the operators.

So the acquiescence of the freight operators is ultimately not required, but it may be desirable for broader political reasons.

How to make the UK unattractive as an investment opportunity going forward in one easy move.... There are much wider economic issues than one relatively minor railway line at play there despite what enthusiasts might think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How to make the UK unattractive as an investment opportunity going forward in one easy move....

What, to take paths nobody is using? Hardly. I'd fully support "use it or lose it" as per e.g. Heathrow slots. And @HSTEd is right - if the Government thinks it's important they can legislate, nothing is immutable, we don't even have a written constitution. If we can make laws that made human interaction illegal*, we can tweak about with some unused freight paths.

* Wasn't even that long ago but it now feels surreal, almost like it didn't happen!

 

[Wolfie]

What, to take paths nobody is using? Hardly. I'd fully support "use it or lose it" as per e.g. Heathrow slots. And @HSTEd is right - if the Government thinks it's important they can legislate, nothing is immutable, we don't even have a written constitution. If we can make laws that made human interaction illegal*, we can tweak about with some unused freight paths.

* Wasn't even that long ago but it now feels surreal, almost like it didn't happen!

Using an equally tenuous analogy would you take the same view about residential property owned by overseas individuals?

Oh, and your constitutional view is rubbish at least while we are signed to the European Convention of Human Rights and associated court.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Using an equally tenuous analogy would you take the same view about residential property owned by overseas individuals?

Technically we could legislate to reclaim it, yes. Whether we should is an entirely different debate from a few unused freight paths being forfeit to allow a half hourly WLL service.

Oh, and your constitutional view is rubbish at least while we are signed to the European Convention of Human Rights and associated court.

It's a fact that the UK has no written constitution and thus nothing is immutable as such. I also don't see why the ECHR would have anything to do with a corporate dispute involving railway paths that aren't used.

The next question to be asked is what alternative route does not create severe disadvantages and increased costs. The low cost - per tonne - of aggregates and cement does not mean they are unimportant.

Run them overnight, cement doesn't get a bit tired because it's 3am. (There is already freight overnight, but looking at a typical daytime hour there should be loads of spare paths)

 

[Wolfie]

Technically we could legislate to reclaim it, yes. Whether we should is an entirely different debate from a few unused freight paths being forfeit to allow a half hourly WLL service.



It's a fact that the UK has no written constitution and thus nothing is immutable as such. I also don't see why the ECHR would have anything to do with a corporate dispute involving railway paths that aren't used.



Run them overnight, cement doesn't get a bit tired because it's 3am. (There is already freight overnight, but looking at a typical daytime hour there should be loads of spare paths)

Re your second para because legally companies have legal personality and thus human rights and the paths are property rights. Unlike the airline example that you cite there was no legislative 'use or lose' in place when they were sold. Also many airlines didn't pay to buy those slots.

 

[HSTEd]

Using an equally tenuous analogy would you take the same view about residential property owned by overseas individuals?

Oh, and your constitutional view is rubbish at least while we are signed to the European Convention of Human Rights and associated court.

All the ECHR requires is that "fair" compensation for seized property is provided. And as a constintutional matter the ECHR requirements only apply because Parliament currently wishes it be so.

With fair compensation seizing those paths is no different than HS2 seizing a house for demolition.

Re your second para because legally companies have legal personality and thus human rights and the paths are property rights. Unlike the airline example that you cite there was no legislative 'use or lose' in place when they were sold. Also many airlines didn't pay to buy those slots.

Just as land can be seized by the state, all other property whether real or virtual can be seized, with appropriate compensation.
An obvious example is the first nationalisation of steel, where the shares themselves were compulsorily purchased. Or indeed the forced nationalisation of Northern Rock.

How to make the UK unattractive as an investment opportunity going forward in one easy move.... There are much wider economic issues than one relatively minor railway line at play there despite what enthusiasts might think.

So use of compulsory purchae makes the UK unattractive as an investment opportunity?

It didn't any of the other times said powers have been used?

But this is all rather off topic so perhaps we should simply leave it there.

 

[cle]

I confess to knowing little about the freight paths and legal scenarios behind them. I do think we shouldn't have freight running through Central London in an ideal world - but we do. If a tweak in conditions (night-time etc) would enable more tph, great.

As I understand it, two tph are earmarked for WLL/NLL increases. I would think beyond that, going to 6 car trains would be next. It's currently 5tph (LO) so going to 6tph would seem enough for capacity. As mentioned, it's the same as many outer tube branches. The Southern also adds frequency in the core - even better if 2tph, even if to Shepherds Bush - but full circle, yes I'd prefer Watford of course. Or St Albans Abbey (post Bricket/signals) - and absorb that