Reinstating passing loops on the Chiltern Sudbury stations

[London Trains]

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 info on usage, but regarding the statement in bold, how do you know this? I assume you haven't carried out a survey on passengers making this interchange, and I can't see any other way of knowing whether this is the case or not.

I'm not saying that an interchange is financially viable or necessary, but it is a very bold claim to say that nobody is bothered by the lack of a direct connection on what is a popular and useful interchange. And it certainly rains an awful lot more than 3 or 4 times a month in the winter months

Edit - just as I was writing this post, safety concerns over beggars being encountered whilst making the walk between the stations have been raised, further proving my point.

 

[sad1e]

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.

West Hampstead was effectively in the middle of a field 146 years ago , no wonder no interchange was considered there then , There's that and also the fact that the Metropolitan Railway and the Midland railway were effectively rivals as the Metropolitan let the Great Central (The Midland Railway's rival ) use its track to access Marylebone.

It is of no surprise no interchange was built back then , Warring railway companies didn't exactly like to share customers.

 

[35B]

West Hampstead was effectively in the middle of a field 146 years ago , no wonder no interchange was considered there then , There's that and also the fact that the Metropolitan Railway and the Midland railway were effectively rivals as the Metropolitan let the Great Central (The Midland Railway's rival ) use its track to access Marylebone.

It is of no surprise no interchange was built back then , Warring railway companies didn't exactly like to share customers.

The Midland also had a reputation for being disinterested in suburban traffic at the time.

More seriously, the interchange does justify better facilities between the three existing service groups. Whether that justifies a) building platforms on the GC lines, b) going beyond a simple Monument style subway, is much more of a question, or c) is realistically affordable are different questions.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

Why is it a faff? It’s about 70 metres from entrance to entrance, and little more than 100m platform to platform. Yes there’s two barrier lines to go through, and a road to cross (with a signalled crossing) but in terms of interchange it is super-easy. Much easier than say Waterloo East to Southwark, or even Waterloo East to Waterloo!

Thanks for the info on usage, but regarding the statement in bold, how do you know this?

Fair cop, I don’t. However I’ve never, ever heard anyone say it bothers them, this thread excepted.

And it certainly rains an awful lot more than 3 or 4 times a month in the winter months

Well, there’s a thing. Clearly it can rain more then 3-4 times a month, but then it rarely rains all day, nor (obviously) at the same time each day it does rain. So the question is how often does it rain at precisely the time that a regukar traveller would be interchanging at West Hampstead?

Geek alert - I have been tracking how often I have to use my umbrella on my daily walks to or from the station, and it is surprisingly few. Four times since April, as it happens (and two of those were last week!) But this is summer and a dry one at that. However, the number of times you would have to use an umbrella for the three minute walk from West Hamsptead Thameslink to the Jubilee each month… based on my recorded experience … I reckon would be an average of 3-4 times a month over the year, for a 5 day per week commuter.

Edit - just as I was writing this post, safety concerns over beggars being encountered whilst making the walk between the stations have been raised, further proving my point.

I have interchange at West Hamsptead about once a month for the past 20 years+, and have never, ever seen this. I did once get shoulder barged by Ken Livingstone right by the Jubilee entrance, but thankfully that was a one off.

 

[sad1e]

I have interchange at West Hamsptead about once a month for the past 20 years+, and have never, ever seen this. I did once get shoulder barged by Ken Livingstone right by the Jubilee entrance, but thankfully that was a one off.

It has only really become common to be pestered by beggers recently, I can't remember it really happening to me there before October last year, and even then it only really happens in the evenings from what I've seen. Still makes the place seem quite unsafe though.

( Coming from a person who uses west Hampstead at least 4 times a week in the late evenings most of the time )

 

[TheWalrus]

Is it really necessary to improve the service at these stations given their proximity to the Central line which will always havw a much more frequent service?
Should the Chiltern line’s main function not to provide fast and relatively frequent services to the Midlands and Oxford?
Would that not generate more passengers and revenue than a local stopping service for the Sudbury stations?

 

[cle]

It has only really become common to be pestered by beggers recently, I can't remember it really happening to me there before October last year, and even then it only really happens in the evenings from what I've seen. Still makes the place seem quite unsafe though.

( Coming from a person who uses west Hampstead at least 4 times a week in the late evenings most of the time )

Just as well you weren't around in the Mad Mary days, ha...

West Hampstead is no more hostile or rough than anywhere (also beggars are on trains and in stations, esp passageways) - - - and the streets there, by virtue of many people changing trains and narrow pavements (if anything that's the danger) - so it's always busy.

 

[Mgameing123]

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

The analysis is this, Road congestion is really bad in London and we need to make it easier to get around suburban London without a car. The only way to do this is by providing more interchanges that help people to do suburban journeys.

There have been studies showing how bad air pollution and road traffic is and most Londoners know how hard it is to get around suburban London without a car.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2025 ==

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?

I mean the interchange oppurtunities aren't at their potential when the Metropolitan Line and Chiltern trains don't stop there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2025 ==

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.

Back when the London Underground there weren't any interchanges aswell because of the intense rivalry. You can't compare the railway back in the day to the railway now. You can look at the past see what we can learn from but what worked or didn't work then doesn't neccesarilly mean it works now or won't work now.

 

[35B]

The analysis is this, Road congestion is really bad in London and we need to make it easier to get around suburban London without a car. The only way to do this is by providing more interchanges that help people to do suburban journeys.

There have been studies showing how bad air pollution and road traffic is and most Londoners know how hard it is to get around suburban London without a car.

Great, that’s a general analysis of why interchange is desirable. Why is this level of investment necessary here? What is the unmet need for these particular routes that this would meet?

 

[Mgameing123]

Great, that’s a general analysis of why interchange is desirable. Why is this level of investment necessary here? What is the unmet need for these particular routes that this would meet?

People would have easy access to many different destinations that aren't in Central London such as Luton Airport, Gatwick Airport, Bedford, Oxford?, Bicester Village?, Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Amersham, Uxbridge, Watford, Chesham, Westfield Sheppards Bush, Stratford, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Willesden Junction, Old Oak Common, Highbury & Islington.

So the question isn't why would an interchange be important here.

It's why shouldn't we have an interchange here? It's the perfect place to change trains outside of Central London.

 

[Bald Rick]

So the question isn't why would an interchange be important here.

It's why shouldn't we have an interchange here? It's the perfect place to change trains outside of Central London.

There already is an interchange there, one used by many people writing on this thread on a regular basis.

The question, therefore, is why should taxpayers stump up hundreds of millions, perhaps even a billion quid to make that interchange a little bit better?

What would be your opinion if, for example, spending all that money resukted in a longer walk for some of the existing interchange opportunities ?

 

[35B]

People would have easy access to many different destinations that aren't in Central London such as Luton Airport, Gatwick Airport, Bedford, Oxford?, Bicester Village?, Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Amersham, Uxbridge, Watford, Chesham, Westfield Sheppards Bush, Stratford, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Willesden Junction, Old Oak Common, Highbury & Islington.

So the question isn't why would an interchange be important here.

It's why shouldn't we have an interchange here? It's the perfect place to change trains outside of Central London.

You haven’t answered my question. You’re assuming that because it might be desirable (not disputed) it is therefore necessary. When you introduce non-suburban destinations like Aylesbury or Bicester Village, you imply that it’s necessary to offer connectivity over journey time for those destinations.

That may be valid - I genuinely don’t know. But I get no sense of whether this is genuine unmet demand, or simple wouldn’t it be nice.

 

[Class15]

There already is an interchange there, one used by many people writing on this thread on a regular basis.

As someone who qualifies as one of the people on the thread using the ‘interchange’ it’s a poor one really. Even an underground subway would help things hugely, even without Met or Chiltern platforms.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

'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.

It is unacceptable for people with mobility problems. It's also unacceptable for other people when the weather is bad.

What should it cost then?

Not having worked in the construction industry, I'm unable to give a realistic estimation. I can however say that hundreds of millions of pounds sounds far more than comparable projects cost in the private sector.

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

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no research, forming the basis of a case. However we know from experience that when interchange facilities are provided within one station in London, they are used by large numbers of people. Prime examples are Barking, Stratford, Gospel Oak, Blackhorse Road, Seven Sisters, Tottenham Hale, Ealing Broadway, East Croydon, Highbury & Islington etc etc. plus of course several London Underground only stations.

 

[NCT]

It is unacceptable for people with mobility problems. It's also unacceptable for other people when the weather is bad.

In a subject sense or in a legal sense?

 

[zwk500]

It is unacceptable for people with mobility problems. It's also unacceptable for other people when the weather is bad.

'Unacceptable' implies people will refuse to change trains. I accept the point about mobility problems, but the suggestion that people would refuse to change trains because it is raining is somewhat overegging things.

Not having worked in the construction industry, I'm unable to give a realistic estimation. I can however say that hundreds of millions of pounds sounds far more than comparable projects cost in the private sector.

Could you point to those comparator projects then?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

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?

In comparison with other interchange hubs in London, very little off-peak; and I do use West Hampstead to change trains.

If, decades ago, British Rail had rebuilt their West Hampstead stations into one combined station - and, of course, they didn't have the money anyway - then today there would undoubtedly be more people changing trains there than at present.

It's revealing and instructive to compare the off-peak numbers of passengers changing trains at North London Line stations West Hampstead and Gospel Oak. Quite a lot of people alight at West Hampstead but very few make their way to the MML station and a handful only go to the Underground station. At Gospel Oak, two or three passengers alighting from the Barking train wait on the eastbound platform. Most go down the stairs. A few leave the station but the majority climb the stairs to the westbound platform. When a train to Stratford stops, several people alight and go the Barking platform. Gospel Oak is a much busier interchange station than West Hampstead. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who changes trains in those stations during rush hour.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2025 ==

In a subject sense or in a legal sense?

In a subjective sense. I'm not involved in the legal issues.

 

[SynthD]

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?

It depends what trains are stopping there. Is it only the inner urban trains, that end at West Ruislip? Then it’s for the people of Harrow on their way to Luton but the train is currently (made up) 15m slower than driving.

The same reasons still apply today.

The Overground is a bigger factor now, and so are the higher property prices.

I can however say that hundreds of millions of pounds sounds far more than comparable projects cost in the private sector.

It is the private sector contractors who come up with the price. The public sector aren’t gold plating, they are simply serving more people.

Barking, Stratford, Gospel Oak, Blackhorse Road, Seven Sisters, Tottenham Hale, Ealing Broadway, East Croydon, Highbury & Islington etc etc. plus of course several London Underground only stations.

As far as I know, none of those have recently widened out of railway land, into land previously taken by homes. Eg Stratford was enlarged as part of major redevelopment of commercial land, Ealing Broadway grew in the Victorian era. And I can’t remember if this proposal also requires rebuilding the north circular road bridge.

 

[NCT]

In a subjective sense. I'm not involved in the legal issues.

Which one do you think matters in an investment decision?

 

[stuu]

It's revealing and instructive to compare the off-peak numbers of passengers changing trains at North London Line stations West Hampstead and Gospel Oak. Quite a lot of people alight at West Hampstead but very few make their way to the MML station and a handful only go to the Underground station. At Gospel Oak, two or three passengers alighting from the Barking train wait on the eastbound platform. Most go down the stairs. A few leave the station but the majority climb the stairs to the westbound platform. When a train to Stratford stops, several people alight and go the Barking platform. Gospel Oak is a much busier interchange station than West Hampstead. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who changes trains in those stations during rush hour.

But the only people who would use West Hampstead to change from the NLL to Thameslink are people who want specific stations on it like Farringdon or ones further afield e.g. Gatwick. The Bakerloo line and Jubilee line are both within a reasonable distance of the stations to the west, and further east people have the Northern Line for Central London. Starting on the NLL if the aim is for somewhere central London is going to be pretty niche. When I used to regularly use it, Jubilee to NLL seemed pretty popular

 

[Mgameing123]

You haven’t answered my question. You’re assuming that because it might be desirable (not disputed) it is therefore necessary. When you introduce non-suburban destinations like Aylesbury or Bicester Village, you imply that it’s necessary to offer connectivity over journey time for those destinations.

That may be valid - I genuinely don’t know. But I get no sense of whether this is genuine unmet demand, or simple wouldn’t it be nice.

The only way we can actually know is by looking at traffic on the M40, M4, M25 and M1 and do not

'Unacceptable' implies people will refuse to change trains. I accept the point about mobility problems, but the suggestion that people would refuse to change trains because it is raining is somewhat overegging things.

Could you point to those comparator projects then?

OSI's are time consuming. They make a simple 2 - 10 minute change into a 10 - 30 minute change.

 

[35B]

The only way we can actually know is by looking at traffic on the M40, M4, M25 and M1 and do not

That begs so many questions

OSI's are time consuming. They make a simple 2 - 10 minute change into a 10 - 30 minute change.

That depends on the OSI, and the distance between train doors.

 

[Farigiraf]

'Unacceptable' implies people will refuse to change trains. I accept the point about mobility problems, but the suggestion that people would refuse to change trains because it is raining is somewhat overegging things.

However, if someone's making a journey from, say, Stanmore to Richmond on a rainy day, their options are:
1. Walking to the tube station in the rain, taking the jubilee line to West Hampstead, exiting the station, walking 1-2 minutes in the rain, entering the Overground station, then taking the Mildmay line and walking some more to their destination in the rain.
2. Getting in a car and sitting in traffic for up to an hour, but at least they can stay nice and warm inside their vehicle.

Disregarding cost (the rail option is likely to be cheaper, but marginally), you can see why people would be far more inclined to take the second option despite it being less than ideal. In comparison, when you have covered interchanges like Stratford, you can do a journey like Lewisham to Hainault smoothly regardless of weather.
If someone is already set on using public transport, then yes, the OSI at West Hampstead is a minor inconvenience all things considered, but others may choose to not take public transport in the first place due to a small thing like this.
I do completely agree that the area is far too built up to warrant major investment in a megastation/interchange at the moment, but I do think there will be a point where, wanting to encourage modal shift, TfL or whoever would fund such a project, will want to build a proper interchange.
I'd say, for example, that it's less likely than Crossrail 2, but more likely than Elizabeth line trains on the Chiltern Mainline.

 

[stuu]

OSI's are time consuming. They make a simple 2 - 10 minute change into a 10 - 30 minute change.

West Hampstead NLL to Jubilee is shorter than plenty of other internal interchanges

 

[35B]

However, if someone's making a journey from, say, Stanmore to Richmond on a rainy day, their options are:
1. Walking to the tube station in the rain, taking the jubilee line to West Hampstead, exiting the station, walking 1-2 minutes in the rain, entering the Overground station, then taking the Mildmay line and walking some more to their destination in the rain.
2. Getting in a car and sitting in traffic for up to an hour, but at least they can stay nice and warm inside their vehicle.

Disregarding cost (the rail option is likely to be cheaper, but marginally), you can see why people would be far more inclined to take the second option despite it being less than ideal. In comparison, when you have covered interchanges like Stratford, you can do a journey like Lewisham to Hainault smoothly regardless of weather.
If someone is already set on using public transport, then yes, the OSI at West Hampstead is a minor inconvenience all things considered, but others may choose to not take public transport in the first place due to a small thing like this.
I do completely agree that the area is far too built up to warrant major investment in a megastation/interchange at the moment, but I do think there will be a point where, wanting to encourage modal shift, TfL or whoever would fund such a project, will want to build a proper interchange.
I'd say, for example, that it's less likely than Crossrail 2, but more likely than Elizabeth line trains on the Chiltern Mainline.

The question is not about how that hypothetical traveller might respond, but how many of them there are who might be persuaded to change mode by the provision of that interchange. And the point about the walk in the rain at each end highlights a key feature - most travellers, most of the time, are not travelling station to station. The time and effort at each end are at least as significant as the interchange penalty.

 

[Farigiraf]

The question is not about how that hypothetical traveller might respond, but how many of them there are who might be persuaded to change mode by the provision of that interchange. And the point about the walk in the rain at each end highlights a key feature - most travellers, most of the time, are not travelling station to station. The time and effort at each end are at least as significant as the interchange penalty.

Then surely each minor improvement to the journey will encourage more and more people to consider the train each time, which'll therefore unclog the busy outer-urban roads by a little, making the walk to/from the station easier. This encourages more people to take the train, and so on and so forth. And that's before you even get into non-transport related infrastructure improvements to make getting to the station easier.
West Hampstead, Neasden and the Chiltern Sudbury stations are examples where for quite a high cost you improve a relatively small (by Greater London standards) amount of people's journeys, compared to places like Camberwell or the Docklands/Thamesmead where every bit of transport investment has had/will have benefitted a lot of people.
West Hampstead's already had a lot of investment to get it where it is now (both the Overground and Thameslink stations were recently rebuilt) but the final step, which is connecting them, will be considerably more expensive hence the mixed reactions in this thread.
Meanwhile the Sudbury stations and Northolt Park have an hourly service (or worse), and without checking train times in advance, many door-to-door journeys are faster by bus let alone the tube. So the ~230k combined entries/exits for the three stations show that even with this level of service, people are willing to take the train, meaning that there is a market for a turn-up-and-go service on the line. The fact that one of the least frequently served lines in London is a lower priority for things like new Crossrail lines than more frequently (albeit still suboptimally) served routes like the SWR branches and the GA broxbourne/hertford route means that investment in the line is too expensive to be 'worth it'. Hence why they are seemingly quite low on the priority list. It doesn't mean there isn't a market - look at the traffic on the North Circular, plus the existing station usage stats - but it's harder (but not impossible) to tap into than others in London.

 

[35B]

Then surely each minor improvement to the journey will encourage more and more people to consider the train each time, which'll therefore unclog the busy outer-urban roads by a little, making the walk to/from the station easier. This encourages more people to take the train, and so on and so forth. And that's before you even get into non-transport related infrastructure improvements to make getting to the station easier.
West Hampstead, Neasden and the Chiltern Sudbury stations are examples where for quite a high cost you improve a relatively small (by Greater London standards) amount of people's journeys, compared to places like Camberwell or the Docklands/Thamesmead where every bit of transport investment has had/will have benefitted a lot of people.
West Hampstead's already had a lot of investment to get it where it is now (both the Overground and Thameslink stations were recently rebuilt) but the final step, which is connecting them, will be considerably more expensive hence the mixed reactions in this thread.
Meanwhile the Sudbury stations and Northolt Park have an hourly service (or worse), and without checking train times in advance, many door-to-door journeys are faster by bus let alone the tube. So the ~230k combined entries/exits for the three stations show that even with this level of service, people are willing to take the train, meaning that there is a market for a turn-up-and-go service on the line. The fact that one of the least frequently served lines in London is a lower priority for things like new Crossrail lines than more frequently (albeit still suboptimally) served routes like the SWR branches and the GA broxbourne/hertford route means that investment in the line is too expensive to be 'worth it'. Hence why they are seemingly quite low on the priority list.

Precisely my point - if resources are being committed, they need to be focused on where they will have most impact.

 

[Instinct04]

How about some platforms at Finchley Road? Not quite as good as West Hampstead, a bit better than Neasden?

 

[Mgameing123]

West Hampstead NLL to Jubilee is shorter than plenty of other internal interchanges

Ok yeah I understand that. In terms of West Hampstead all I’m asking for is Chiltern and Met Line platforms. The only thing I’m complaining about is building an OSI from the start. As that is just short sighted planning that will bite back in the future.

 

[NCT]

There will no be Chiltern and Met line platforms.

The OSI is staying.