Reinstating passing loops on the Chiltern Sudbury stations

[Mgameing123]

Look at all that space in Copenhagen around the line to where the lines cross at Neasden. It's not a comparable situation at all.

There is good spare as alot of this land is being used for purposes that don’t generate value.

 

[zwk500]

There is good spare as alot of this land is being used for purposes that don’t generate value.

Look at where the two lines cross. There is residential property right up to the railway boundary on the north-west and south-east Quadrants, which is precisely where a multi-level station would need to go. You'd also need to replace the rail-over-rail bridge with a much wider one, and of course you're either stopping the Met line additionally or forcing that line to be a 2nd change anyway.

Londoners are well used to hopping across OSI's, don't make the mistake of thinking a transit map is how people actually live in a city. Yes, a fully integrated interchange would be better than an OSI. However, the *need* for one is not endless and the costs of providing one at Neasden (which is very much a local resident's station, it's not a destination or tourist attraction) massively outweigh the benefits it might provide compared to a 2 min walk down the road.

 

[SynthD]

There is good spare as alot of this land is being used for purposes that don’t generate value.

Finding lightly used private land within 200m of the station is very different to creating a workspace for the 15x500m+ project you propose. What you’ve found may be good for building flats, funding a little of the WLO station, the cheap one. To bring it back to the existing Chiltern stations, do any of them have nearby parcels of land that could be built on to help fund some tiny passing loops?

 

[150219]

Feasibly, could you have one Chiltern platform on the Jubilee Island (currently single face) and then stagger so that the platform on the Chiltern in the other direction was to the East of the B453 where one of @Mr. SW suggested walkways is?

No idea if that is any use, or improves costs, but that might help thinking about interchanges?

Some work is needed on the B453, but otherwise the notion of OSI makes full sense here.

There's not a lot of space there without compromising the point work for Neasden South Junction for an up platform to be built adjacent to the existing station. The down platform between the over line bridges would probably get you a 6/7 car platform. But I'm not convinced there's any benefit to doing so on the mainlines, any more than there would be to have mainline services stopping at Royal Oak or Westbourne Park on the GWML for example.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==

Finding lightly used private land within 200m of the station is very different to creating a workspace for the 15x500m+ project you propose. What you’ve found may be good for building flats, funding a little of the WLO station, the cheap one. To bring it back to the existing Chiltern stations, do any of them have nearby parcels of land that could be built on to help fund some tiny passing loops?

Mostly where the loops were previously. But the fact they haven't been put back as part of the previous Evergreen infrastructure improvements suggest there's limited benefit in putting any back that haven't been already. The one that got away was 4-tracking West Ruislip to South Ruislip, but we did at least get the new fast route via South Ruislip on the down main instead, allowing platformed services to be overtaken.

Wembley Stadium would need the turn back siding removing. Both Sudburys would need to be rebuilt. Denham's new down platform would need to be rebuilt. Gerrards Cross' up platform similarly. Beaconsfield approach tracks were realigned, so would probably need the same put back. High Wycombe has also been realigned.

 

[zwk500]

Finding lightly used private land within 200m of the station is very different to creating a workspace for the 15x500m+ project you propose. What you’ve found may be good for building flats, funding a little of the WLO station, the cheap one. To bring it back to the existing Chiltern stations, do any of them have nearby parcels of land that could be built on to help fund some tiny passing loops?

A Tiny loop is not worth the money it'll cost nowadays. you need something big enough to at least clear the mainline in a reasonable margin.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It doesn't make sense to have a comprehensive rebuild of Neasden Station. That would cost hundreds of millions and cause a lot of disruption. The OSI will be no different to New Cross to New Cross Gate, or Catford to Catford bridge, or West Croydon to East Croydon.

Each of which is far less than ideal. I've never accepted this idea that making people leave one station, walk down the road a bit and then enter a different station is a satisfactory way of changing trains. At West Hampstead the distances are so small, it's not an issue nor would they be at Neasden, but at locations like Forest Gate and Croydon it most certainly is an issue. Providers of public transport need to recognise the absurd inconsistency in providing step free access at enormous expense at some stations but encouraging people to walk some distance at others.

If building new platforms at Neasden for Chiltern trains and linking all of them to a new overhead station really would incur costs of hundreds of millions then someone should investigate why.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==

I’d say platforms for all lines regardless if they are used or not.

But it’s not an alternative to West Hampstead as it’s effectively 2 changes instead of 1.

Only West Hampstead or Finchley Road would work.

For the umpteenth time, platforms for Chiltern trains at West Hampstead is not a feasible option. Neasden is as appropriate an interchange station as Finchley Road and has more room available.

 

[zwk500]

Each of which is far less than ideal. I've never accepted this idea that making people leave one station, walk down the road a bit and then enter a different station is a satisfactory way of changing trains. At West Hampstead the distances are so small, it's not an issue nor would they be at Neasden, but at locations like Forest Gate and Croydon it most certainly is an issue. Providers of public transport need to recognise the absurd inconsistency in providing step free access at enormous expense at some stations but encouraging people to walk some distance at others.

'Less than ideal' and 'unsatisfactory' are not the same thing. Yes it's less than ideal, it would be wonderful if everywhere was Berlin HbF. But in the practicalities of the real world, an OSI isn't unacceptable.

If building new platforms at Neasden for Chiltern trains and linking all of them to a new overhead station really would incur costs of hundreds of millions then someone should investigate why.

What should it cost then?

 

[35B]

Thank you for reminding me. So yes, it makes sense to have a comprehensive rebuild of Neasden Station and that in turn means that adding platforms for Chiltern trains is a good idea.

What is the analysis that supports a case for Neasden as an interchange?

 

[Mgameing123]

Each of which is far less than ideal. I've never accepted this idea that making people leave one station, walk down the road a bit and then enter a different station is a satisfactory way of changing trains. At West Hampstead the distances are so small, it's not an issue nor would they be at Neasden, but at locations like Forest Gate and Croydon it most certainly is an issue. Providers of public transport need to recognise the absurd inconsistency in providing step free access at enormous expense at some stations but encouraging people to walk some distance at others.

If building new platforms at Neasden for Chiltern trains and linking all of them to a new overhead station really would incur costs of hundreds of millions then someone should investigate why.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==


For the umpteenth time, platforms for Chiltern trains at West Hampstead is not a feasible option. Neasden is as appropriate an interchange station as Finchley Road and has more room available.

Neasden is not appropriate at all. Can I go to Luton Airport from Neasden? Can I easily change to a train to Gatwick Aiport or St Albans, Harpenden, Luton?

A West Hampstead Interchange will need to be built at some point in time. It's not something we can ignore. It may be expensive now but its definitely not going to get cheaper in the future.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==

'Less than ideal' and 'unsatisfactory' are not the same thing. Yes it's less than ideal, it would be wonderful if everywhere was Berlin HbF. But in the practicalities of the real world, an OSI isn't unacceptable.

What should it cost then?

OSI's are unacceptable when they are built on purpose. Your going to be using between 10 to 25 minutes to change trains which at that point you may aswell just drive to your destination.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==

A Tiny loop is not worth the money it'll cost nowadays. you need something big enough to at least clear the mainline in a reasonable margin.

A tiny loop is fine for a line that has limited capacity. You can just make trains wait at Neasden for like 5 minutes to allow an overtake.

 

[zwk500]

A tiny loop is fine for a line that has limited capacity. You can just make trains wait at Neasden for like 5 minutes to allow an overtake.

It's far, far worse on a line that has limited capacity, because you are then knocking trains behind you while you pull out after being overtaken. Also stopping at Neasden on Chiltern Trains would kill the timetable into Marylebone.

 

[Mgameing123]

It's far, far worse on a line that has limited capacity, because you are then knocking trains behind you while you pull out after being overtaken. Also stopping at Neasden on Chiltern Trains would kill the timetable into Marylebone.

Not going to be that big of a problem when Old Oak Common Chiltern opens.

 

[zwk500]

Not going to be that big of a problem when Old Oak Common Chiltern opens.

'when'?

 

[SynthD]

Providers of public transport need to recognise the absurd inconsistency in providing step free access at enormous expense at some stations but encouraging people to walk some distance at others.

If building new platforms at Neasden for Chiltern trains and linking all of them to a new overhead station really would incur costs of hundreds of millions then someone should investigate why.

It’s feasible to spend several million on a new footbridge with lifts for accessibility in a way that doesn’t imply it’s feasible to spend a few hundred million on shortening some unusual journeys.

You can just make trains wait at Neasden for like 5 minutes to allow an overtake.

And slowing down the far more common journeys. Also, this needs additional lines, widening the land take of this station, increasing the cost.

Not going to be that big of a problem when Old Oak Common Chiltern opens.

It would be even more of a problem if there was a simultaneous aim to improve services to the existing stations like the Sudburys, as the majority of those people want Marylebone. It’s not growth if you’re planning to take advantage of a quieter line.

 

[35B]

Neasden is not appropriate at all. Can I go to Luton Airport from Neasden? Can I easily change to a train to Gatwick Aiport or St Albans, Harpenden, Luton?

A West Hampstead Interchange will need to be built at some point in time. It's not something we can ignore. It may be expensive now but its definitely not going to get cheaper in the future.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2025 ==


OSI's are unacceptable when they are built on purpose. Your going to be using between 10 to 25 minutes to change trains which at that point you may aswell just drive to your destination.

I repeat my question. What is the analysis supporting the need for these interchanges?

 

[Bald Rick]

A West Hampstead Interchange will need to be built at some point in time.

Well, it evidently wasn’t needed 146 years ago when the second station opened there, and I’ll have a wager it won’t be built in the next 146 years.

 

[Class15]

Well, it evidently wasn’t needed 146 years ago when the second station opened there, and I’ll have a wager it won’t be built in the next 146 years.

In the last 50 years alone:

Thameslink has become a thing and has hugely improved stopping services along the South MML and providing direct services to Blackfriars, London Bridge and East Croydon, among others.

The North London line has seen its service increase hugely as part of the Overground, with direct services to Shepherds Bush for Westfield, Kensington, Chelsea and Clapham as well as Stratford and Hackney.

West Hampstead underground station has seen the Jubilee line come in, providing direct services to Westminster, Bond Street, Waterloo, Canary Wharf and the Docklands.

A lot has changed to make West Hampstead more of a hub. Comparing West Hampstead now with West Hampstead 146 years ago is not helpful.

 

[zwk500]

In the last 50 years alone:

Thameslink has become a thing and has hugely improved stopping services along the South MML and providing direct services to Blackfriars, London Bridge and East Croydon, among others.

The North London line has seen its service increase hugely as part of the Overground, with direct services to Shepherds Bush for Westfield, Kensington, Chelsea and Clapham as well as Stratford and Hackney.

West Hampstead underground station has seen the Jubilee line come in, providing direct services to Westminster, Bond Street, Waterloo, Canary Wharf and the Docklands.

A lot has changed to make West Hampstead more of a hub. Comparing West Hampstead now with West Hampstead 146 years ago is not helpful.

What is the value of building an extremely long subway other than avoiding passengers going through gatelines? On the tube/transit map it'd still be shown as a 'connector' link rather than as a single interchange point.

 

[mr_jrt]

The gateline aspect is pretty small fish in the grand scheme of things. Getting passengers off crowded narrow pavements and enabling them to change between lines under cover in inclement weather would make the interchange much more attractive, and most likely quicker.

My personal approach would be to go for a wholesale redevelopment on the eastern side of the road, with a combined station built into the ground floor of a massive shopping centre of some sort. A hub like West Hampstead should be targetted for much higher density development to take advantage of its direct connections.

 

[Class15]

What is the value of building an extremely long subway other than avoiding passengers going through gatelines? On the tube/transit map it'd still be shown as a 'connector' link rather than as a single interchange point.

1. Avoid people having to go onto the High Street in West Hampstead

2. Avoid people having to cross the road to get between the stations.

3. Avoid bad weather on the surface

Etc etc

The gateline aspect is pretty small fish in the grand scheme of things. Getting passengers off crowded narrow pavements and enabling them to change between lines under cover in inclement weather would make the interchange much more attractive, and most likely quicker.

My personal approach would be to go for a wholesale redevelopment on the eastern side of the road, with a combined station built into the ground floor of a massive shopping centre of some sort. A hub like West Hampstead should be targetted for much higher density development to take advantage of its direct connections.

Exactly this.

 

[35B]

I know it's pretty rubbish, but the only time's I've changed there have been on enthusiast journeys. Thinking of people making real journeys, how much interchange is there at present, and what is the additional latent demand that this might unlock?

 

[zwk500]

1. Avoid people having to go onto the High Street in West Hampstead

This is potentially a disbenefit to the proprietors of the high street! (especially those selling coffee or pastry-based goods)

2. Avoid people having to cross the road to get between the stations.

Could be dealt with at far less cost and greater benefit by a enhanced road crossing/pedestrianisation.

3. Avoid bad weather on the surface

Would be cheaper to give them all an umbrella, every day.

 

[Topological]

This is potentially a disbenefit to the proprietors of the high street! (especially those selling coffee or pastry-based goods)

Could be dealt with at far less cost and greater benefit by a enhanced road crossing/pedestrianisation.

Would be cheaper to give them all an umbrella, every day.

Interesting proposal. Connect it to the tapping on and off system and then people can tap to get an umbrella. Prevents someone coming up and taking too many, though I suspect it would still work if someone was stocking their ebay business from the free umbrellas.

 

[150219]

A lot has changed to make West Hampstead more of a hub. Comparing West Hampstead now with West Hampstead 146 years ago is not helpful.

If it's more helpful to think of the last 20-25 years when the previous proposal was considered and abandoned as not viable, then I'd consider this a better option.

The same reasons still apply today.

 

[Mr. SW]

Ok. Right. Gloves off now, and wearing my big West Londoner hat...

There are three basic reasons why interchanges between the Chiltern Lines and the Underground at Neasden and West Hampstead are not feasible and will not be built.

1: The West London Orbital proposal simply knocks Neasden and WH into the longest of long grass in the middle of the grassiest grassy plain.
2: The possible extension of the New North Main Line down to Old Oak Common knocks them into biggest of cocked hats.
3: Both together, WLO and NNML don't so much knock them out of the field so much as them being hit so hard they obtain escape velocity and within a couple of years, enter a highly elliptical orbit around any large planet in the outer Solar System.

There are good reasons why they don't feature today, and were found historically never to be needed.

There now.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Perhaps Sudbury Hill Harrow/Sudbury & Harrow Road could justify 2tph, but I'm not convinced that traffic levels would work with more than that.

If you 4 track as much of South Ruislip to High Wycombe as possible and upgraded/electrified the New North Main Line from Old Oak Common all the way to High Wycombe, you could run up to 4tph High Wycombe stoppers on the Elizabeth Line.

That would enable you to get rid of the Gerrards Cross/High Wycombe stoppers operated from Marylebone, and potentially Gerrards Cross/Beaconsfield stops on the Oxford services.

Add Sudbury Hill Harrow/Sudbury & Harrow Road/Northolt Park/Wembley Stadium to all of the Oxford services and ideally use battery/OHLE out to South Ruislip initially to improve on DMU acceleration.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know it's pretty rubbish, but the only time's I've changed there have been on enthusiast journeys. Thinking of people making real journeys, how much interchange is there at present, and what is the additional latent demand that this might unlock?

There‘s quite a lot doing Thameslink (from the north) to Jubilee Line. In the region of 100-150 passenegrs per train ex Thameslink in the morning peak. It was more before the Elizabeth Line took the Canary Wharfers.

Not so many from Thamelink to the NLL; perhaps a fifth of that number.

The short stroll down West End Lane bothers precisely no one. It’s a rather shorter walk than from Thameslink to any of the deep tube lines at St Pancras, and there’s more choice of cafés on the way. Yes it’s annoying when it rains, but that happens perhaps 3-4 times a month and hardly at all for the last 6 months.

 

[Class15]

There‘s quite a lot doing Thameslink (from the north) to Jubilee Line. In the region of 100-150 passenegrs per train ex Thameslink in the morning peak. It was more before the Elizabeth Line took the Canary Wharfers.

Not so many from Thamelink to the NLL; perhaps a fifth of that number.

The short stroll down West End Lane bothers precisely no one. It’s a rather shorter walk than from Thameslink to any of the deep tube lines at St Pancras, and there’s more choice of cafés on the way. Yes it’s annoying when it rains, but that happens perhaps 3-4 times a month and hardly at all for the last 6 months.

I do NLL to Jubilee most days. It’s a bit of a faff and would be much easier with a subway of some sort.

 

[sad1e]

I do NLL to Jubilee most days. It’s a bit of a faff and would be much easier with a subway of some sort.

One unpleasant i have had to deal while interchanging in West Hampstead are overtly aggressive beggars/ Homeless people following me and others between the stations persistently asking for money. It definitely is some kind of organised scheme as there are the same people doing it every particular day of the week, There's a group that does Mondays and another group that does Tuesdays and they seem to rotate throughout the week.

It definitely doesn't make the interchange seem very safe , particularly in the evenings when they seem to be most active.

 

[35B]

There‘s quite a lot doing Thameslink (from the north) to Jubilee Line. In the region of 100-150 passenegrs per train ex Thameslink in the morning peak. It was more before the Elizabeth Line took the Canary Wharfers.

Not so many from Thamelink to the NLL; perhaps a fifth of that number.

The short stroll down West End Lane bothers precisely no one. It’s a rather shorter walk than from Thameslink to any of the deep tube lines at St Pancras, and there’s more choice of cafés on the way. Yes it’s annoying when it rains, but that happens perhaps 3-4 times a month and hardly at all for the last 6 months.

Thanks for the clarification on usage.

 

[Egg Centric]

Well, it evidently wasn’t needed 146 years ago when the second station opened there, and I’ll have a wager it won’t be built in the next 146 years.

I'll lay that bet if you like. Any size (but the more the merrier), any odds. On one condition - payable up front please