Upgrade in frequency on the North London Line

[vla50]

Hello, despite the fact that the North London Line is at capacity, there has been a Camden Highline project proposed (has the viaduct officially been sold off yet?) that would remove the ability for a Platform 3 to be installed at Camden Road. Can extra trains be added onto the stretch to Stratford (the problem seems to be more Gospel Oak to Willesden Junction in regards to capacity because you have freight on both the GOBLIN and towards KTW?) and then continue through Primrose Hill to the Willesden Junction low levels? Sorry if this has been asked before, but just curious and as a semi-regular user, it would be nice to see an upgrade to the service frequency wise!

Is Maiden Lane looking particularly likely to reopen as well if you don’t mind me asking? Many thanks

 

[AlbertBeale]

Hello, despite the fact that the North London Line is at capacity, there has been a Camden Highline project proposed (has the viaduct officially been sold off yet?) that would remove the ability for a Platform 3 to be installed at Camden Road. Can extra trains be added onto the stretch to Stratford (the problem seems to be more Gospel Oak to Willesden Junction in regards to capacity because you have freight on both the GOBLIN and towards KTW?) and then continue through Primrose Hill to the Willesden Junction low levels? Sorry if this has been asked before, but just curious and as a semi-regular user, it would be nice to see an upgrade to the service frequency wise!

Is Maiden Lane looking particularly likely to reopen as well if you don’t mind me asking? Many thanks

Local information suggests that the "Highline" project is a bit like a mini-"Garden Bridge" - ie it's the "bright" idea of someone with more seed money than sense, and someone who has the ear of people on the local Council. The finances to do anything beyond trashing the public green space at the point it's supposed to start don't seem to be in place; promises that it would be reversible as and when the Camden Road platform was needed by the railway come without any money put aside to do so; people living alongside the planned scheme would have their lives messed up by the noise of entertainments and by having people walking past their windows; etc etc etc. It seems to be extremely unpopular with virtually all "ordinary people" who actually live anywhere near the area. But I guess someone somewhere with influence thinks they can make some money...

 

[vla50]

Local information suggests that the "Highline" project is a bit like a mini-"Garden Bridge" - ie it's the "bright" idea of someone with more seed money than sense, and someone who has the ear of people on the local Council. The finances to do anything beyond trashing the public green space at the point it's supposed to start don't seem to be in place; promises that it would be reversible as and when the Camden Road platform was needed by the railway come without any money put aside to do so; people living alongside the planned scheme would have their lives messed up by the noise of entertainments and by having people walking past their windows; etc etc etc. It seems to be extremely unpopular with virtually all "ordinary people" who actually live anywhere near the area. But I guess someone somewhere with influence thinks they can make some money...

Could you link where all this has been said? I know it’s nearing 1:30am, so don’t feel pressured to do so now, but would be nice! Many thanks!

 

[AlbertBeale]

Could you link where all this has been said? I know it’s nearing 1:30am, so don’t feel pressured to do so now, but would be nice! Many thanks!

I've got the information primarily from items in various issues of the local weekly paper, the Camden New Journal over quite a long period of time. I see that last Thursday's issue of the CNJ has an advert on the paper's lively letters pages - see pg 13 - calling for the Highline to be scrapped - the ad was placed by Future Transport London (www.futuretransportlondon.org). So that might be a place to start.

If you go to https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5...e=&pubid=17f44973-4555-45fd-8eaa-50c862e86de6 you can go page by page through all the CNJs going back many years ... though that might not be particularly efficient in terms of what you're looking for!

Good luck.

 

[Business Bob]

As a Camden resident in the vicinity of the proposed Highline I wouldn't mind it but as a driver on the NLL I'd much prefer Plt 3 be brought back into use! Not so much for the frequency but for disruption which is most days the current frequency is 6tph and 10tph in the peak.

 

[Mikey C]

My problem with the Camden Highline is that is goes nowhere useful, thus isn't a genuinely useful bit of pedestrian infrastructure like the New York one.

The NY one is a much quicker and pleasanter way of walking down that part of Manhattan, so would be well used without any touristy or commercial activities on it.

 

[matt_world2004]

Even if the camden highline gets installed. This probably wouldn't be a huge barrier towards it being reinstated as a railway line later . Footpaths are pretty easy to convert back to rail unlike property development and to a lesser extent roadways

 

[vla50]

Even if the camden highline gets installed. This probably wouldn't be a huge barrier towards it being reinstated as a railway line later . Footpaths are pretty easy to convert back to rail unlike property development and to a lesser extent roadways

But the extent of the opposition once removed would be astronomical, no?

 

[Taunton]

In a way, the railway is their own worst enemy with this sort of thing. If they are going to leave a lengthy strip of property abandoned in the middle of a city, people are going to come up with alternative uses for it, some supporting politician is going to twist the arm of the DfT, and they are likely to lose it for ever - whether the Treasury questions why it can't be sold off, or some charity, as here, wants it for their own use and/or glory.

It's not just Camden Road where there is the crunch, but all along the North London line. Fitting mainstream freight services in between frequent stopping services, and from observations over the years, most often when waiting on Homerton station platforms, the operating is quite nifty, despite which it seems pretty impossible to get a freight between the GEML and the North London without stopping at least one passenger service for a minute or two. There's no real space to recess them (which the Highline area would be excellent for), one would hope for a useful enhancement project that didn't start off with charging £1 billion per bridge replaced.

When did the railway give it up? It must be since the 25kV was installed, as there are the remains of overhead supporting structures all along.

 

[zwk500]

But the extent of the opposition once removed would be astronomical, no?

Trading it for an expanded NLL would probably satisfy a lot of opposition.

In a way, the railway is their own worst enemy with this sort of thing. If they are going to leave a lengthy strip of property abandoned in the middle of a city, people are going to come up with alternative uses for it, some supporting politician is going to twist the arm of the DfT, and they are likely to lose it for ever - whether the Treasury questions why it can't be sold off, or some charity, as here, wants it for their own use and/or glory.

The railway didn't need and couldn't really afford to put infrastructure on it just for the sake of it, so it was either sell it off for good or find somebody who could use it in the meantime.

It's not just Camden Road where there is the crunch, but all along the North London line. Fitting mainstream freight services in between frequent stopping services, and from observations over the years, most often when waiting on Homerton station platforms, the operating is quite nifty, despite which it seems pretty impossible to get a freight between the GEML and the North London without stopping at least one passenger service for a minute or two. There's no real space to recess them (which the Highline area would be excellent for), one would hope for a useful enhancement project that didn't start off with charging £1 billion per bridge replaced.

There's loops at Caledonian Road, but recessing the freights doesn't really help because you can't slow down without hitting the train behind and it takes too long to get up to speed when starting off. Oh, and there isn't length for multiple trains to be stacked up with them now being 775m long, highline or no. The issue is then the flat junctions at either end because your path through the NLL has to line up with both gaps without stopping, and the Overground trains have next to no recovery time in them to flex. The Primrose Hill lines help marginally in this respect, but even so if you are trying to get all the way to Acton Wells it's a sodding nightmare to time.

 

[swt_passenger]

Back when the first enhancements to the LO NLL/WLL combined service were being applied for, the accepted wisdom was that they’d never be able to run more than 6 tph west of Camden Rd, because they’d be competing with freight for limited paths. So there were serious plans for a Stratford to Camden Rd peak service that would have used a terminating bay, with through services using P3. As we now know, they’ve managed to run first 8 tph, and eventually 10 tph all the way along the combined routes, without needing a bay platform.

I don’t think there have been any recent suggestions in TFL board papers to increase services yet again, and you would have to assume a bay platform is currently off the agenda.

I don’t think reopening NLL Maiden Lane has ever been a serious proposal.

 

[Taunton]

It is indeed an issue now at both ends of the line for trains to fit between the NLL and what they are merging into, slotting in to whichever route they are joining, at either Primrose Hill or Stratford.. I don't know if there is 775m of space between the NLL junction west of Stratford and the GEML itself, but even for a freight that might fit there, they typically are reduced to walking pace as they come to a stand, which impacts the service behind or (particularly I notice) ones leaving Stratford westbound.

The issue of recessing is not only looping for passenger trains to overtake, which broadly doesn't happen, but dealing with any problem where the freights cannot get onto their continuing main line for whatever reason, line blockage, missing crew change, loco defect, or whatever.

The 5-car trains on the line, 10tph at peaks, are nowadays commonly packed at those times, and it's not apparent where one goes next with this - those of us who knew the half-hourly Cravens 2-car dmus on the line when first resuscitated wonder where all this usage has come from.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'd imagine the next steps would be limited platform extensions for extra capacity. Most of the platforms could take an extra car I think and that's an extra roughly 1200 passengers an hour.
Beyond that, I think you'd need a new route for freight.

 

[vla50]

I'd imagine the next steps would be limited platform extensions for extra capacity. Most of the platforms could take an extra car I think and that's an extra roughly 1200 passengers an hour.
Beyond that, I think you'd need a new route for freight.

On the topic of platform extensions - is Gospel Oak the reason why the GOBLIN can’t be 5 car? Or are there other offending platforms? Is it possible to extend it?

I know I said this earlier however is it possible, instead of terminating trains at Camden Road to continue them to Willesden Junction through Primrose Hill? I’m aware someone earlier said that were confused where most of the demand came from for the London Overground to require such a bolstering in capacity, but I should imagine given the increase in capacity and frequency compared to the Silverlink days, as well as the rise of Google Maps providing the quickest route from A to B. Which does really beg the question about how many people currently live nearer to Queens Park, South Hampstead, Kilburn High Road, Kensal Green than Brondesbury Park, Finchley Road & Frognal, Brondesbury & Kensal Rise but yet have to walk to those stations? Could the capacity strain on the NLL be divided between two different lines, because whilst there are stations such as West Hampstead, Hampstead Heath & Gospel Oak which unavoidably passengers who require those destinations would need to continue using trains to on the current NLL, however given the number of through journeys and the fact that the current Watford DC stations could be closer by to current NLL users at certain stations, would that reduce overcrowding to an extent?

I should imagine the situation with the NLL will only get worse with Old Oak Common opening, and like with Stratford, I should imagine passengers will be using these stations to avoid Central London and the tube whereas they might’ve previously had to go through C London to complete their journeys.

 

[AlastairFraser]

On the topic of platform extensions - is Gospel Oak the reason why the GOBLIN can’t be 5 car? Or are there other offending platforms? Is it possible to extend it?

I know I said this earlier however is it possible, instead of terminating trains at Camden Road to continue them to Willesden Junction through Primrose Hill? I’m aware someone earlier said that were confused where most of the demand came from for the London Overground to require such a bolstering in capacity, but I should imagine given the increase in capacity and frequency compared to the Silverlink days, as well as the rise of Google Maps providing the quickest route from A to B. Which does really beg the question about how many people currently live nearer to Queens Park, South Hampstead, Kilburn High Road, Kensal Green than Brondesbury Park, Finchley Road & Frognal, Brondesbury & Kensal Rise but yet have to walk to those stations? Could the capacity strain on the NLL be divided between two different lines, because whilst there are stations such as West Hampstead, Hampstead Heath & Gospel Oak which unavoidably passengers who require those destinations would need to continue using trains to on the current NLL, however given the number of through journeys and the fact that the current Watford DC stations could be closer by to current NLL users at certain stations, would that reduce overcrowding to an extent?

I should imagine the situation with the NLL will only get worse with Old Oak Common opening, and like with Stratford, I should imagine passengers will be using these stations to avoid Central London and the tube whereas they might’ve previously had to go through C London to complete their journeys.

Think Woodgrange Park might be an issue too.
As for extending via Primrose Hill, the section through Hackney can't fit any new services too I think, due to goods services and resultant pathing issues.
ERTMS/ECTS might bring some improvement, but then again try and get the Freight Operating Companies to fit that to goods locos.

 

[PGAT]

I believe Barking Riverside has been built for 5 coaches, so it's not completely not off the table

 

[cle]

I know I said this earlier however is it possible, instead of terminating trains at Camden Road to continue them to Willesden Junction through Primrose Hill? I’m aware someone earlier said that were confused where most of the demand came from for the London Overground to require such a bolstering in capacity, but I should imagine given the increase in capacity and frequency compared to the Silverlink days, as well as the rise of Google Maps providing the quickest route from A to B. Which does really beg the question about how many people currently live nearer to Queens Park, South Hampstead, Kilburn High Road, Kensal Green than Brondesbury Park, Finchley Road & Frognal, Brondesbury & Kensal Rise but yet have to walk to those stations? Could the capacity strain on the NLL be divided between two different lines, because whilst there are stations such as West Hampstead, Hampstead Heath & Gospel Oak which unavoidably passengers who require those destinations would need to continue using trains to on the current NLL, however given the number of through journeys and the fact that the current Watford DC stations could be closer by to current NLL users at certain stations, would that reduce overcrowding to an extent?

It's been proposed over the years, once upon a time with the ELL - but of course it still happens in times of disruption. It's notably much faster from Willesden and Kilburn/QP/Kensal areas to Camden and beyond too.

To the ridership catchment duplication, I think there is limited overlap (I would say most between Queens Park and Brondesbury Park, but the Kensals too).

South Kilburn, below Queens Park and Maida Hill - would be brand new and there is a lot of development there. And Kilburn is completely new catchment, it's a real hike up to Brondesbury. Kilburn High Road would likely serve many new users, being in the 'central shopping area' of Kilburn, and the top end of Maida Vale. South Hampstead, same inc Swiss Cottage and top of St Johns Wood.

The bay(s) at Willesden would be perfect for this. But talking of extensions, ideally that LL station would be converted into two full length islands to enable longer trains - or terminating Bakerloo line trains - a lot more flexibility. Yes there is a little signal to move in the bay road.

 

[vla50]

Think Woodgrange Park might be an issue too.
As for extending via Primrose Hill, the section through Hackney can't fit any new services too I think, due to goods services and resultant pathing issues.
ERTMS/ECTS might bring some improvement, but then again try and get the Freight Operating Companies to fit that to goods locos.

But there has been a suggestion that by allowing trains to terminate at Camden Road that 50% more trains could be provided down to Stratford, something of which a freight report acknowledged. I should imagine they should be no issue diverting trains to Willesden Junction via Primrose Hill although freight trains do sometimes have to hold there.

The NLL/WLL/GOBLIN yes should receive ECTS and ERTMS. That would allow more paths to be freed up

 

[SynthD]

Is the Camden end of the high line a blocker to a future platform 3? Or 4? It’s staying as NR land and surely it must fit into their long term plans for the area for them to get this far with it.

Once you have a platform 3, with the current signalling and freight paths, how many Camden-Stratfords can be added?

 

[cle]

The platform and road space on the island (eastbound platform) will remain, but very shortly afterwards, it will become the High Line so I think even using that as an east-facing bay and installing a turnout would not be possible.

But ideally it would be three through lines, for the freight/passing benefit - vs just adding Stratford shuttles.

 

[baz962]

Think Woodgrange Park might be an issue too.
As for extending via Primrose Hill, the section through Hackney can't fit any new services too I think, due to goods services and resultant pathing issues.
ERTMS/ECTS might bring some improvement, but then again try and get the Freight Operating Companies to fit that to goods locos.

South Tottenham is an issue especially towards Barking. The stop board is beyond the gate as it is. I would of thought five would be hanging off and you would need SDO.

 

[PGAT]

Do the 710s not have SDO? The 378s are perfectly capable of using SDO on the East London Line

 

[Kite159]

Do the 710s not have SDO? The 387s are perfectly capable of using SDO on the East London Line

They do have SDO which gets used when pairs of units run out of Liverpool Street, i.e. Hackney Downs the rear coach won't release and one of the other stations before Seven Sisters.

 

[baz962]

Do the 710s not have SDO? The 387s are perfectly capable of using SDO on the East London Line

I don't think 387's run on overground.

 

[PGAT]

I don't think 387's run on overground.

Sorry I meant 378

 

[AlastairFraser]

But there has been a suggestion that by allowing trains to terminate at Camden Road that 50% more trains could be provided down to Stratford, something of which a freight report acknowledged. I should imagine they should be no issue diverting trains to Willesden Junction via Primrose Hill although freight trains do sometimes have to hold there.

The NLL/WLL/GOBLIN yes should receive ECTS and ERTMS. That would allow more paths to be freed up

That was before the frequency uplift to 6tph/10tph, I believe.
I agree with your second point.

South Tottenham is an issue especially towards Barking. The stop board is beyond the gate as it is. I would of thought five would be hanging off and you would need SDO.

Is there any feasibility for extension there? I'm sure there's others on top of ST and Woodgrange Park, but the latter strikes me as quite difficult, purely due to the junction for the Great Eastern Main Line in close proximity.

 

[baz962]

That was before the frequency uplift to 6tph/10tph, I believe.
I agree with your second point.

Is there any feasibility for extension there? I'm sure there's others on top of ST and Woodgrange Park, but the latter strikes me as quite difficult, purely due to the junction for the Great Eastern Main Line in close proximity.

I'm not sure Wood grange is that bad. I used to drive the route and I'm trying to remember where the stop boards were . I just remember South Tottenham being really short. Woodgrange seemed quite long and the stop board wasn't right at the end I think. I once changed ends there , but I rarely took too much notice. But South Tottenham you couldn't help but notice as you had to go past the gate on the platform end.

 

[vla50]

That was before the frequency uplift to 6tph/10tph, I believe.
I agree with your second point.

Is there any feasibility for extension there? I'm sure there's others on top of ST and Woodgrange Park, but the latter strikes me as quite difficult, purely due to the junction for the Great Eastern Main Line in close proximity.

The 50% increase was long after the 10tph uplift, I believe it was suggested in 2021, and whilst I'm unsure of when respective LO frequency increases have definitely taken place, at the end of 2018 the NLL had a frequency of at least 8tph in the peaks

 

[zwk500]

The NLL/WLL/GOBLIN yes should receive ECTS and ERTMS. That would allow more paths to be freed up

On a point of extreme pedantry, the signalling system is ETCS (European Train Control System). ERTMS is the Traffic Management Side, and is about train running, not train planning or track capacity (ETCS is a component of ERTMS). ECTS is the European Credits and Transfer System that helps harmonise degree quality and recognition across Europe.

Back on topic, ETCS L2 (In-cab but fixed blocks) will help the NLL to a certain extent, primarily by allowing shorter blocks but also by allowing higher diverging speeds at loops and junctions. There are also smaller benefits around overlaps and safety sections together with closing-up at slow speed, however it doesn't change the fact that trains can only run so close together an at a maximum for this mixed-traffic line you are looking at releasing maybe 2 paths per hour (headways are unlikely to go below 3 for freight following LO or LO following freight, and they're already 3.5-4').

 

[AlastairFraser]

On a point of extreme pedantry, the signalling system is ETCS (European Train Control System). ERTMS is the Traffic Management Side, and is about train running, not train planning or track capacity (ETCS is a component of ERTMS). ECTS is the European Credits and Transfer System that helps harmonise degree quality and recognition across Europe.

Back on topic, ETCS L2 (In-cab but fixed blocks) will help the NLL to a certain extent, primarily by allowing shorter blocks but also by allowing higher diverging speeds at loops and junctions. There are also smaller benefits around overlaps and safety sections together with closing-up at slow speed, however it doesn't change the fact that trains can only run so close together an at a maximum for this mixed-traffic line you are looking at releasing maybe 2 paths per hour (headways are unlikely to go below 3 for freight following LO or LO following freight, and they're already 3.5-4').

In all honesty, after platform extensions and ETCS/ERTMS, there's not much you can do, apart from building new extremely expensive infrastructure to reroute freight.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2023 ==

The 50% increase was long after the 10tph uplift, I believe it was suggested in 2021, and whilst I'm unsure of when respective LO frequency increases have definitely taken place, at the end of 2018 the NLL had a frequency of at least 8tph in the peaks

Interesting, I don't think it's entirely feasible personally, due to the many, many conflicts along different sections of the line. On further consideration, I think increasing frequency of the Watford DC using ETCS/ERTMS would deliver a greater capacity uplift, perhaps to a metro-style frequency (but the uplift would be partially limited by the need to leave paths for any prospective Tube to Watford plan revival.) I'm going to stop here before I go full crayonista mode...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2023 ==

I'm not sure Wood grange is that bad. I used to drive the route and I'm trying to remember where the stop boards were . I just remember South Tottenham being really short. Woodgrange seemed quite long and the stop board wasn't right at the end I think. I once changed ends there , but I rarely took too much notice. But South Tottenham you couldn't help but notice as you had to go past the gate on the platform end.

I'll take your experienced view there! It's not helped by the fact it has a junction at either end I think.