West London Orbital Consultation

[London Trains]

See post #49

Why would Feltham Junction (or Whitton Junction in this case) need physically changing to accommodate an extra 4tph? There's only 4tph off peak/7tph peak through the junction in each direction, it's not at capacity by any means.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Why would Feltham Junction (or Whitton Junction in this case) need physically changing to accommodate an extra 4tph? There's only 4tph off peak/7tph peak through the junction in each direction, it's not at capacity by any means.

6 tph each way off peak -
two Reading,
two Windsor
two Weybridge

 

[London Trains]

6 tph each way off peak -
two Reading,
two Windsor
two Weybridge

I was referring to Whitton Junction (sorry if I didn't make that clear), which isn't served by the Weybridge services, but even at Feltham Junction, it would be physically impossible for the WLO services to conflict with the Weybridge services anyway as there is no conflicting movement.

 

[Benjwri]

I was referring to Whitton Junction (sorry if I didn't make that clear), which isn't served by the Weybridge services, but even at Feltham Junction, it would be physically impossible for the WLO services to conflict with the Weybridge services anyway as there is no conflicting movement.

It is the combination of Whitton, Feltham and Hounslow Junctions that I suspect will cause problems though, it’s not as simple as two totally separate junctions because trains interact on both sides but then diverge, for example Weybridge services will still interact with rounders. Not to mention the problem of where to fit a bay platform at Feltham and another conflicting route.

To realistically fit in all those conflicts just between Hounslow and Feltham, and then how tight it will be with freight on the West London Orbital, you’d almost be having to recast multiple mainlines, not to mention the potential for importing delays across London.

 

[MarkyT]

Would be eye wateringly, and impractically, expensive to change Feltham Junction to be able to handle 4, potentially 6,tph extra

Perhaps half the service, every other train, might be extended to Feltham. While requiring some more stock in service, it could take some pressure off the Hounslow facility, as well as improve connectivity with further-flung Windsor line services. A ~150m Overground terminal platform might be built east of the A244 bridge on the site of Feltham panel and the surrounding NR infrastructure depot.

 

[Benjwri]

Perhaps half the service, every other train, might be extended to Feltham. While requiring some more stock in service, it could take some pressure off the Hounslow facility, as well as improve connectivity with further-flung Windsor line services. A ~150m Overground terminal platform might be built east of the A244 bridge on the site of Feltham panel and the surrounding NR infrastructure depot.

Realistically though there just isn’t the money to start building further infrastructure and changing signalling on a far busier line, especially if you don’t save any of the money from reconfiguring Hounslow.

 

[Mr. SW]

Putting my West Londoner hat here and I'm getting concerned about some of the comments
You are aware of the 20mph speed restrictions though the divergences at the Hounslow/Whitton/Feltham triangle?
And the freight trains using up some of the slots?
And the empty stock movements in and out of Feltham Depot?
There are good reasons why the proposal ends at Hounslow apart from the risks over over-trafficking Twickenham-Staines. For instance: it's relatively easy (!) to reverse trains there, it reduces the risk of contagion, it keeps the service relatively self-contained etc, etc.

What TfL have put forward is a reasonable proposal that can be more easily achieved over realistic time period for the cost. Do not let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of the good enough.

It has also struck me that this would be a method of visiting my uncle: Loughborough to Bedford or Luton - Thameslink to Hendon or Brent Cross West - WLO to Acton Central or South Acton - Mildmay to Gunnersbury. But then again, he is 97.

 

[MarkyT]

Putting my West Londoner hat here and I'm getting concerned about some of the comments
You are aware of the 20mph speed restrictions though the divergences at the Hounslow/Whitton/Feltham triangle?
And the freight trains using up some of the slots?
And the empty stock movements in and out of Feltham Depot?
There are good reasons why the proposal ends at Hounslow apart from the risks over over-trafficking Twickenham-Staines. For instance: it's relatively easy (!) to reverse trains there, it reduces the risk of contagion, it keeps the service relatively self-contained etc, etc.

What TfL have put forward is a reasonable proposal that can be more easily achieved over realistic time period for the cost. Do not let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of the good enough.

It has also struck me that this would be a method of visiting my uncle: Loughborough to Bedford or Luton - Thameslink to Hendon or Brent Cross West - WLO to Acton Central or South Acton - Mildmay to Gunnersbury. But then again, he is 97.

Fully agree. Get the initial system working first before any extensions. Perhaps Feltham might be a longer-term objective, in which case safeguarding space for a terminal platform facility might be wise.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It has also struck me that this would be a method of visiting my uncle: Loughborough to Bedford or Luton - Thameslink to Hendon or Brent Cross West - WLO to Acton Central or South Acton - Mildmay to Gunnersbury.

You can already do Loughborough to Gunnersbury with fewer changes - just Luton and West Hampstead

 

[SynthD]

The map https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/49699/widgets/150493/documents/110963 doesn't show where the station entrance(s) would be, but for access to OOC itself there would have to be one on Old Oak Common Lane

It’s north of Wells House Rd, where that Lane first sees the railway.

It would also be helpful to also have a new station in that area where the line crosses Aerodrome Road to serve all the additional housing that is being built in the Colindale area. It would also be adjacent to the RAF Museum.

All that housing has its S106 payments assigned elsewhere already. There would need to be new housing, as there will be at other stations. (But I wonder if that applies at the lesser ones like Syon and Isleworth)

 

[Bald Rick]

You can already do Loughborough to Gunnersbury with fewer changes - just Luton and West Hampstead

You can only do that on Sundays, and then only at the beginning and end of the day.

You can do it every day, twice an hour, by changing only twice at St Pancras and Victoria (quicker) or St Pancras and Hammersmith (easier).

 

[Mr. SW]

I wouldn't consider using the route I suggested if I was carrying anything more than the smallest of small suitcases. It was just amusing to think about.

 

[norbitonflyer]

You can only do that on Sundays, and then only at the beginning and end of the day

If that is the case, I assume changing at Brent Cross instead of West Hampstead won't be any easier.

 

[Acton1991]

How will the connection to North Acton work? Will it be entirely on the street? The area is pretty dimly lit with poor pavement design right now.

 

[Bald Rick]

If that is the case, I assume changing at Brent Cross instead of West Hampstead won't be any easier.

Correct, it’s the stopping pattern south of Kettering of trains from Loughboro’ that is the main issue.

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

Would be eye wateringly, and impractically, expensive to change Feltham Junction to be able to handle 4, potentially 6,tph extra

But wasn't there a plan by SWR to run at those frequencies, running 4 trains from Reading and Windsor

 

[Class15]

@Dr_Intoxicated youre correct and thus @Benjwri ’s comment doesn’t make sense to me! But maybe there were less services on other routes when SWR proposed this?

There were actually 4 tph readings in the peak a few years ago???

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

@Dr_Intoxicated youre correct and thus @Benjwri ’s comment doesn’t make sense to me! But maybe there were less services on other routes when SWR proposed this?

There were actually 4 tph readings in the peak a few years ago???

Yes, in the evening there were alternating extra Readings and Firmlys

 

[rmHawk765]

Considering that not all of SWR's pre-COVID services have even been restored, junction constraints will become a problem, though perhaps less so than intermixing with freight.

I personally think Hounslow etc residents would much rather have 4tph all-day, every day to Waterloo than WLO, if a choice must be made between the two.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The chances of OHLE extending past the existing limit at Acton Central is very, very, very low.

Can South Acton to the Kew Triangle have "grandfather rights" to be re-electrified on third rail? (Last saw public passenger in 1939, but I don't know when the power was switched off)

 

[zwk500]

Can South Acton to the Kew Triangle have "grandfather rights" to be re-electrified on third rail? (Last saw public passenger in 1939, but I don't know when the power was switched off)

Probably not, given any installation would be a new system rather than ongoing maintenance renewal or enhancement of a preexisting installation.

 

[A60stock]

May have missed this already but will the new stations need to be quite large or will a simple, two platformer, small station building do (which is obviously fully accessible)?

I imagine Old Oak will need to be quite big given the interchange. I am not sure about Neasden and Harlesden - will these two need to be upgraded to handle interchange and will the interchange be OSI or within the actual premises?

I do find it interesting that if the proposals go ahead, you now have the Met line skipping two big interchange possibilities, Neasden and West Hampstead. I wonder if the Met platforms and upgrades will be made to allow full stopping of the Met now that the area is re-signalled. I have always thought WH should be the call for the Met instead of Finchley Road, but this would entail alot of work. Obviously you cannot replace Wembley Park as a call on the Met.

Then there's the Chiltern lines, but this is really another conversation and off topic entirely.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I imagine Old Oak will need to be quite big given the interchange. I am not sure about Neasden and Harlesden - will these two need to be upgraded to handle interchange and will the interchange be OSI or within the actual premises?

The consultation document https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-orbital/news_feed/new-stations
is quite detailed, and shows all four new stations as simple two platform stations with an OSI (three platforms at Old Oak as there will be a turnback facility - as it seems the proposal is to have 4tph south of OOC and 6 tph north thereof)

 

[cle]

May have missed this already but will the new stations need to be quite large or will a simple, two platformer, small station building do (which is obviously fully accessible)?

I imagine Old Oak will need to be quite big given the interchange. I am not sure about Neasden and Harlesden - will these two need to be upgraded to handle interchange and will the interchange be OSI or within the actual premises?

I do find it interesting that if the proposals go ahead, you now have the Met line skipping two big interchange possibilities, Neasden and West Hampstead. I wonder if the Met platforms and upgrades will be made to allow full stopping of the Met now that the area is re-signalled. I have always thought WH should be the call for the Met instead of Finchley Road, but this would entail alot of work. Obviously you cannot replace Wembley Park as a call on the Met.

Then there's the Chiltern lines, but this is really another conversation and off topic entirely.

I conversely think that it is good to spread the interchanges on the route to not overload any single place and to placemake some outer focal minor ‘hubs’ (ie somewhere with two lines!)

Neasden has a ton of housing potential, much as has been done at Wembley. But you wouldn’t call Met services there. Harlesden might see the same.

And as for West Hampstead - in another lifetime yes ideal but not remotely possible in the footprint today. But Finchley Road is already a major focal point and interchange (esp w buses, coaches) and bridges into Hampstead, Frognal etc - quite a wide catchment)

 

[ClivePage]

I still don't understand why services to West Hampstead Thameslink (WHP) would be difficult. As far as I can see from track diagrams there are already two tracks, I think only used for freight at present, all the way from the west side of WHP all the way to the junction with the Dudding Hill line. It looks as if these lines are not currently electrified, and of course new platforms would be needed at WHP for the new services, but the same is true at Brent Cross West and Hendon. Since West Hampstead is pretty much the Crewe Junction of North West London and already has fairly frequent trains to both Gatwick and Luton Airports, it would surely be a very useful interchange point?

 

[Mr. SW]

I think West Hampstead has been de-scoped to promote the achievability of the proposal. It's a shame that Cricklewood loses out too.
Maybe there's an operational reason as well such as reducing the chances of conflicting moves causing delays at Acton Wells Junction. The proposed bay road at Old Oak Common Lane is presumably for this reason also, allowing trains to reverse without clogging up the system.

 

[evergreenadam]

The consultation document https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-orbital/news_feed/new-stations
is quite detailed, and shows all four new stations as simple two platform stations with an OSI (three platforms at Old Oak as there will be a turnback facility - as it seems the proposal is to have 4tph south of OOC and 6 tph north thereof)

So uneven 8-15min service intervals north of OOC. Could be increased later.

 

[starlight73]

I had a look in the documents and it says West Hampstead Thameslink (WHP) was descoped because:

* it would be delivered together with the branch to Hendon. It has a £100m higher capital cost
* maximum of 2tph to WHP
* duplicates (sort of?) Mildmay line route from Acton Central to West Hampstead
* conflict with Cricklewood Aggregates Terminal

(Not sure if this was already discussed, up thread. It’s from page 109 of this doc: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/49699/widgets/158342/documents/111903 )

The value for money of the WLO Max 6tph Hounslow to Hendon (2tph), Old Oak Common to Hendon (2tph) and Hounslow to West Hampstead Thameslink (2tph) option was also slightly lower than the other two remaining options. This option was also not taken further forward.

While the value for money assessment was one factor in whether to take this option forward, there were several other reasons why this option did not perform as well. Despite the benefits being similar to the other two remaining options, the significant extra capital cost (approximately £100m) for this option was the cause of the lower value for money. This represents an affordability risk, at a time when finances are constrained.

Furthermore, West Hampstead is already served by a range of other rail services, including the Mildmay line connecting it to south west London, so the option value is less compared to other options.

This option is also the least compatible with the London Overground operating model of providing at least a 4 tph service, with the maximum service frequency to West Hampstead Thameslink limited to only 2 tph. Finally, there are feasibility challenges with providing freight access to Cricklewood Aggregates Terminal with this option, which would be challenging to overcome while retaining the functionality of the terminal. This option was therefore also not taken forward.

 

[Mr. SW]

<rhetoric> How many trains a day are they expecting at the Aggregates Terminal? </rhetoric>

 

[Coolzac]

I think that on balance it seems a good cost effective plan to improve the connectivity of West London. The interchanges will be particularly useful and also it will be good take traffic away from Central London. It's not perfect but given the cost of improvements these days I think it's well thought through and a no brainer!