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

[Meerkat]

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.

Sounds pricey, and not very close to OOC station for people likely to have luggage. Where is all the OOC resi/office development supposed to be going - will OOC Lane be anywhere near it?
A Neasden station wont be a great interchange with the Jubilee line, but I guess if you make Harlesden a combined interchange then that and Brent Cross might take some load off West Hampstead-Willesden NLL......IF OOC Lane is any use for possible passengers to OOC station/development and Park Royal.
Reaching for my crayons make it tram train so you can loop it off (avoiding NLL altogether), serve OOC station forecourt then go back up past North Acton Central line to South Ruislip.
Personally I would throw the budget into improving Willesden Junction and putting a people mover from there to North Acton via OOC Station.

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.

This projected line would only take the Hounslow loop traffic off. Richmond is already connected via NLL

 

[mr_jrt]

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.

I personally think untangling things would be the thing to aim for here.

Do the relatively easy extension northwards to terminate in bays at Mill Hill Broadway and then reduce Thameslink calls south of there. Passengers change for Thameslink at Mill Hill or West Hampstead and you have a shuttle running between the two on the WLO tracks to provide the frequency required. You could conceivably build a new interchange station where the Northern and Hendon lines cross (Grahame Park, perhaps?), but I suspect it'd have very poor road access. Shame it wasn't planned in, as that area has had massive redevelopment over the last 10 years or so.

Then the big ticket item - bore a new tunnel from east of West Hampstead to east of Gospel Oak and route the Goblin service down it, joining it to the WLO service. New underground platforms at Gospel Oak, and potentially as an interchange with Belsize Park on the Northern Line.

 

[Dr_Paul]

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.

That's a bit presumptuous. I've just been to my local A+E on my bike.

 

[MPW]

Some commentary here that the proposal doesn't do enough. I think it's very pragmatic to start with what can be easily/cheaply put in place to establish a service. Then any additional interchanges/extensions etc can be done later with a separate business case. This can help avoid cost overruns and delays or even cancellation.

 

[miklcct]

No capacity on the MML for any regular passenger service off the Dudding Hill line. Hence if it happens it will stay on the 'Hendons', and that means new platforms.

Is 8 tph really the limit?

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.

The main problem at West Hampstead is the lack of a Chiltern station. It's such a pain going from the Chiltern area to North London as the trains only call at Wembley Stadium (no interchange possibility) and Marylebone (with poor tube access).

 

[Bald Rick]

Is 8 tph really the limit?

The point is that you can’t get off the Dudding Hill line onto the MML to/from London without crossing the fast lines, and they have 10-14tph in each direction, and crossing on the flat to the slows is nigh on impossible.

You can go northbound on to the slows by going over the Silkstream flyover, but then that is where freights are held now awaiting their MML path. Also, what’s the point? There simply isn’t (and won’t be) a big flow from MML north to that part of London.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The point is that you can’t get off the Dudding Hill line onto the MML to/from London without crossing the fast lines, and they have 10-14tph in each direction, and crossing on the flat to the slows is nigh on impossible.

You can go northbound on to the slows by going over the Silkstream flyover, but then that is where freights are held now awaiting their MML path. Also, what’s the point? There simply isn’t (and won’t be) a big flow from MML north to that part of London.

. . . and so we come back to the point I made in Post 62.

 

[mr_jrt]

...and I in 63 for a tunnel

 

[zwk500]

. . . and so we come back to the point I made in Post 62.

Why would they build a massive new flyover in a much more difficult place when Silkstream is just up the road?

...and I in 63 for a tunnel

Where in the name of all that is holy are you going to get the money for a tunnel from Cricklewood to Gospel Oak, and how are you going to ventilate it?

 

[Bald Rick]

. . . and so we come back to the point I made in Post 62.

...and I in 63 for a tunnel

Neither of which are buildable without widespread land take and demolition, and would come with a very hefty price tag.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do the relatively easy extension northwards to terminate in bays at Mill Hill Broadway and then reduce Thameslink calls south of there. Passengers change for Thameslink at Mill Hill or West Hampstead and you have a shuttle running between the two on the WLO tracks to provide the frequency required. You could conceivably build a new interchange station where the Northern and Hendon lines cross (Grahame Park, perhaps?), but I suspect it'd have very poor road access. Shame it wasn't planned in, as that area has had massive redevelopment over the last 10 years or so.

Yes you're right, an interchange station there would be a much more sensible, more useful (and probably cheaper) way of connecting to the Northern line than my suggestion. Since that's a bit off-topic for this thread, I think I'll create a new thread for that idea.

 

[leytongabriel]

Is 8 tph really the limit?



The main problem at West Hampstead is the lack of a Chiltern station. It's such a pain going from the Chiltern area to North London as the trains only call at Wembley Stadium (no interchange possibility) and Marylebone (with poor tube access).

Yes a Chiltern West Hampstead stop would make an awful lot of sense.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes a Chiltern West Hampstead stop would make an awful lot of sense.

And it would make even more sense if the Metropolitan line trains called at West Hampstead instead of Finchley Road - which was part of the original West Hampstead interchange proposals that were being seriously floated 10-12 years ago, but appear to have died due to lack of funding.

 

[MarkyT]

... not very close to OOC station for people likely to have luggage.

It will be about 300m between concourse entrances, along a footpath adjacent to the Elizabeth Line depot boundary fence. I hope they consider installing a canopy over it so interchanging passengers can avoid the rain.

 

[miklcct]

And it would make even more sense if the Metropolitan line trains called at West Hampstead instead of Finchley Road - which was part of the original West Hampstead interchange proposals that were being seriously floated 10-12 years ago, but appear to have died due to lack of funding.

Wasn't it died because of having to demolish lots of buildings?

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes a Chiltern West Hampstead stop would make an awful lot of sense.

Except for the hundreds of people who live on Broadhurst Gardens and Sherriff Road who would lose their homes…

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Why would they build a massive new flyover in a much more difficult place when Silkstream is just up the road?

Because the Silkstream route only enables north bound access to the Midland Main Line. Any new suburban passenger traffic from south west London would need access to West Hampstead station to be of any value and the trains would need to be able terminate somewhere other than St. Pancras.

Neither of which are buildable without widespread land take and demolition, and would come with a very hefty price tag.

I'm very surprised to hear that a flyover would require a large land take. In my view, the sacrifice would be closing the slow lines and the Hendon Lines (south) for a few months, which undoubtedly would be problematic, and building the foundations of the flyover on the footprint of the temporarily closed lines.

 

[zwk500]

I'm very surprised to hear that a flyover would require a large land take.

You need somewhere to store the parts/concrete mixers and plant etc as well as room to move people around the worksite.

In my view, the sacrifice would be closing the slow lines and the Hendon Lines (south) for a few months, which undoubtedly would be problematic,

Is putting it EXTREMELY mildly.

and building the foundations of the flyover on the footprint of the temporarily closed lines.

And you are working how close to the (presumably still open) fast lines, with work on both sides requiring regular crossing of said fast lines (presumably now nose-to-tail with EMR and TL trains trying to cope with the passenger load).

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm very surprised to hear that a flyover would require a large land take. In my view, the sacrifice would be closing the slow lines and the Hendon Lines (south) for a few months, which undoubtedly would be problematic, and building the foundations of the flyover on the footprint of the temporarily closed lines.

For a flyover intended to be used by heavy freight trains, then you will need between 1,000 and 1,500m length depending on local topography. On the stretch from Belsize tunnel to Cricklewood that doesn’t exist unobstructed as the NLL, West End Lane, West Hampstead station, Mill Lane and Minster Lane are in the way. There’s also residential property hard up against the border all the way from West Hampstead to Cricklewood, who would no doubt have something to say about there being a large concrete flyover outside their bedroom / bathroom windows. In reality that means it would have to be a dive under, unless of course you want to permanently close at least one and probably more of the above mentioned roads or the NLL.

Also, as ever, it’s not just about the finished article, but how you build it. Look at the worksites for the flyovers on HS2 or EWR, or Werrington, or the Bermondsey dive under. This would be no different. Also see how long it is taking to build them.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

You need somewhere to store the parts/concrete mixers and plant etc as well as room to move people around the worksite.

Is putting it EXTREMELY mildly.

And you are working how close to the (presumably still open) fast lines, with work on both sides requiring regular crossing of said fast lines (presumably now nose-to-tail with EMR and TL trains trying to cope with the passenger load).

For a flyover intended to be used by heavy freight trains, then you will need between 1,000 and 1,500m length depending on local topography. On the stretch from Belsize tunnel to Cricklewood that doesn’t exist unobstructed as the NLL, West End Lane, West Hampstead station, Mill Lane and Minster Lane are in the way. There’s also residential property hard up against the border all the way from West Hampstead to Cricklewood, who would no doubt have something to say about there being a large concrete flyover outside their bedroom / bathroom windows. In reality that means it would have to be a dive under, unless of course you want to permanently close at least one and probably more of the above mentioned roads or the NLL.

Also, as ever, it’s not just about the finished article, but how you build it. Look at the worksites for the flyovers on HS2 or EWR, or Werrington, or the Bermondsey dive under. This would be no different. Also see how long it is taking to build them.

Thank you both. Would a flyover at Cricklewood be more possible, bearing in mind that the Cricklewood curve is elevated as it passes over Edgware Road/Cricklewood Broadway before descending to ground level where the railway has a large amount of land available for storage purposes plus land on the east side of the station?

This thread has already questioned the point of the mooted new service. If connectivity - that new buzz word - is the goal, then access to West Hampstead and Old Oak Common will be essential.

 

[mr_jrt]

The concerns raised above are largely why I feel a tunnel would be preferable. I'm not sure I agree about the land take - I envisioned it completely replacing the existing Carlton Road junction to Junction Road junction connection, so that would give plenty of footprint for starting off a TBM, IMHO. At the Finchley Road end, you would probably have to be creative with Blackburn Road, but it's quite doable. Obvious starter for 10 is to pull it up, build a portal and ramp structure, and build a structure over said new structures to reinstate the road. Or you locate the start of the ramp closer towards the NLL bridge and aim to get below the road in the ~250m before it starts butting up to the fast lines, which looks comparable to the Acton diveunder built for Crossrail, though AFAIAA, only the passenger units use the diveunder. Or a combination of the two to give more gentle gradients.

 

[bakerstreet]

Sadiq Khan confirms plans for new 'West London Orbital' rail link between Hounslow and Hendon ​

The 11-mile rail project would stop at Isleworth, Brentford, Acton, Harlesden, Neasden and Brent Cross.

There would also be a station at Old Oak Common linking with the planned HS2 line to Birmingham, and a branch after Neasden off to West Hampstead via Cricklewood.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-plans-new-West-London-Orbital-rail-link.html

 

[swt_passenger]

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

Probably because both were part of the original 2018 Mayoral Strategy. Otherwise they’re completely unrelated.

 

[zwk500]

The concerns raised above are largely why I feel a tunnel would be preferable. I'm not sure I agree about the land take - I envisioned it completely replacing the existing Carlton Road junction to Junction Road junction connection, so that would give plenty of footprint for starting off a TBM, IMHO.

You need a lot of space to launch TBMs, look at Crossrail and HS2 worksites. And you need somewhere to accept deliveries, as well as a viable route in and out of the worksite for said delivery and waste movements. HS2 is having to build a separate tunnel just to carry the conveyor for the spoil chucked out by the TBMs from OOC.

At the Finchley Road end, you would probably have to be creative with Blackburn Road, but it's quite doable.

Technically feasible maybe, but you're running into several million pounds just to purchase the properties already.

Obvious starter for 10 is to pull it up, build a portal and ramp structure, and build a structure over said new structures to reinstate the road.

Again, costly to do this - feasible certainly, but over-railway development would need some serious sound and vibration insulation to meet modern standards.

Or you locate the start of the ramp closer towards the NLL bridge and aim to get below the road in the ~250m before it starts butting up to the fast lines, which looks comparable to the Acton diveunder built for Crossrail, though AFAIAA, only the passenger units use the diveunder. Or a combination of the two to give more gentle gradients.

Maximum gradient of 1:80 permitted on newbuilds, so 250m gets you 3.1m lower - UK centreline height of rail vehicles is c.4m, so either the road (and it's associated services/decking etc) needs to raise by 1m+ around the railway or the passengers will need to crouch down, which won't help the crush loading figures!

 

[Bald Rick]

Obvious starter for 10 is to pull it up, build a portal and ramp structure, and build a structure over said new structures to reinstate the road. Or you locate the start of the ramp closer towards the NLL bridge and aim to get below the road in the ~250m before it starts butting up to the fast lines, which looks comparable to the Acton diveunder built for Crossrail, though AFAIAA, only the passenger units use the diveunder. Or a combination of the two to give more gentle gradients.

Don’t forget that for a TBM - which in this case would be around 7.5m in diameter for 2 x single track tunnels, 11-12m for double track) - you need to have at least a diameter of ground cover above the tunnel crown, and preferably more, where the bored tunnel starts (not necessarily at the portal)

That puts rail level at least 14m below ground level, which means around 1200m of approach ramp, minimum, at 1:80 allowing for the vertical transition.

 

[zwk500]

Don’t forget that for a TBM - which in this case would be around 7.5m in diameter for 2 x single track tunnels, 11-12m for double track) - you need to have at least a diameter of ground cover above the tunnel crown, and preferably more, where the bored tunnel starts (not necessarily at the portal)

That puts rail level at least 14m below ground level, which means around 1200m of approach ramp, minimum, at 1:80 allowing for the vertical transition.

You wouldn't happen to know the required separation between single track bores would you? Because if it's 2x Single track tunnels and the line has to flare out then re-use of an existing corridor is going to be problematic in another way as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would a flyover at Cricklewood be more possible, bearing in mind that the Cricklewood curve is elevated as it passes over Edgware Road/Cricklewood Broadway before descending to ground level where the railway has a large amount of land available for storage purposes plus land on the east side of the station?

It’s not elevated very much, and east of Cricklewood station the line is hard up against residential property, indeed almost the whole way to West Hampstead. Much of that was built relatively recently when the land reserved for the M1 extension was released. You’d still need an approx 5-700m ramp down.

You wouldn't happen to know the required separation between single track bores would you? Because if it's 2x Single track tunnels and the line has to flare out then re-use of an existing corridor is going to be problematic in another way as well.

Technically, you don’t need much separation at all. The separation is preferred to allow tolerance for TBMs going slightly off course (it does happen…). A couple of metres as a minimum is usually manageable.

 

[TrainApplicant]

How do I apply to be a train driver on this line?

 

[bobster1001]

How do I apply to be a train driver on this line?

The full passenger line hasn't even been built yet so it would be quite hard to apply now lol. Apply to Arriva Rail London once it's open

 

[Sm5]

The Sutton (Belmont station) plan seems badly thought out.
The Up platform still exists, not only that its street level access, and step free both sides.

Yet for some reason theyve decided to ignore that, and build it beyond the station as a siding.
Which means to reinstate a second platform will involve undoing the work of the siding and doing the whole exercise again.

Royal Marsden is a world leading cancer hospital, its not your average A&E, so it will attract able bodied, but with one flaw. Belmont station to the hospital is 1/3rd of a mile away, straight uphill.

The bus goes straight into the hospital grounds, departing right outside Sutton station, only 1 mile / 3 bus stop rides from the hospital. Its the same bus from Belmont, except youve got to walk nearly half the distance to the hospital, from Belmont station, to reach the nearest bus stop, which is then next stop to the hospital, or walk, which is obviously slower than the bus, from either Belmont or Sutton.

A tram would make more sense, but the bus is easier, and will remain so from Sutton, and the end to end journey time will be shorter at Sutton. The tram was probably dropped for obvious reasons…not enough potential passengers.. build a tram Belmont station would be finished. Which reflects where Belmont is.. the hospital is already there, has been for decades, so its demand is already sized, and I doubt would “double“ in demand.

in the bigger scheme of things, I cant help but think tfl’s motives is more about Overground extension, and with what minimal revenue abstraction there is to Belmont, Just 100k passengers.. which is >1/3rd of the overall branch (Banstead 94k, Epsom Downs 64k), you would have to wonder if the rest of the branch would survive.

Would you see £20mn spent on a siding on lets say Nelson station, with similar passenger numbers (94k, and it too has a hospital, even closer, just 0.1m), afterall the Colne branch only has an hourly service, similar passenger numbers on the line, but has no chance of ever getting an every 15 minute service…let alone being 8 car !!!

A better proposition imo would be to build the missing platforms at Cheam.. as a terminating point for Thameslink via Carshalton and turning the Wimbledon loop over to TFL extending from West Croydon, it could then continue along Tooting onto the little used P16/17 at Clapham Or the terminators at Blackfriars... the flaw, Cheam, like Epsom Downs is not in tfl’s micronation.