Building New Stations Where Lines Intersect

[Cherry_Picker]

The Chiltern/Bakerloo crossing just north of Wembley Central would also be a good candidate for a station, but only if the frequency of stopping services on the Chiltern line increased.

I can't really see any great demand for this. Again, the disruption it would cause to existing services just to crowbar another station into an area that is incredibly well served by rail just strikes me as meaning it's not worth it.

 

[Bevan Price]

Whilst do-able, its a poor location, as the overlap for the junction protecting signal on the Up Wigan would either be too short or it would force the platforms quite a way Wigan side of the bridge. Either way, Down trains braking for the new station would reduce capacity on the main line. Buckshaw is really too close to Euxton to be perfect ...

There used to be platforms on the Wigan line at Lostock Junction (as it then was) - until Marples/Beeching closed the entire station. When it was reopened, they only built platforms on the Bolton - Preston line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is an idea that's been kicking around for years. If the Midland Railway couldn't manage it Bradford Council aren't gonna be able to do it now! (Ironic really - Bradford city centre literally is a hole! There's virtually nothing between the two stations and hasn't been for years since it was all demolished to make way for the shopping centre than never was.)

Surprised no-one's mentioned Burscough, where the Preston - Ormskirk line bisects the Wigan Wallgate - Southport Chapel St lines at almost 90 degrees. Not sure what the situation is now, but NetworkRail were seriously looking at this as an option - seem to remember even seeing detailed plans somewhere.

It would probably be cheaper to reinstate the Burscough curves, with Ormskirk - Preston services reversing at Burscough Junction, which is probably more convenient for the town centre than any new station at your suggested location.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can't really see any great demand for this. Again, the disruption it would cause to existing services just to crowbar another station into an area that is incredibly well served by rail just strikes me as meaning it's not worth it.

The point of an interchange isn't really to provide additional services for the area the station is located in, it's to provide new journey opportunities by changing at that station. That's why it's - umm - called an interchange.

The obvious way to implement an interchange here is by moving Wembley Central to the other side of Wembley High Road, so - no additional station on the Bakerloo line. As I recall, the existing Wembley Central station is not exactly the nicest of stations anyway, so rebuilding could be quite welcome. There would be an additional station on the Chiltern line, but since it would be next to a medium sized town centre (which the line currently runs past without stopping), that's arguably a good thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the New Cross branch was already there (so the savings would be marginal) and provides all the connectional opportunities except Deptford/Greenwich/Maze Hill.

Fair point about the savings being marginal. However missing out the entire Woolwich line is a pretty huge omission (the Woolwich line trains via Lewisham don't stop at New Cross btw so no interchange from them either). Also, New Cross only gets an Overground train every 15 minutes. A station where I suggested would see a much more frequent Overground service, giving massively better connection opportunities. (As well as allowing travel from the SouthEastern area to the Norwood Junction line without going into London Bridge).

 

[Cherry_Picker]

The point of an interchange isn't really to provide additional services for the area the station is located in, it's to provide new journey opportunities by changing at that station. That's why it's - umm - called an interchange.

The obvious way to implement an interchange here is by moving Wembley Central to the other side of Wembley High Road, so - no additional station on the Bakerloo line. As I recall, the existing Wembley Central station is not exactly the nicest of stations anyway, so rebuilding could be quite welcome. There would be an additional station on the Chiltern line, but since it would be next to a medium sized town centre (which the line currently runs past without stopping), that's arguably a good thing.

Yes, I know the theory.

I'm talking practically. Again, not every split level station is as useful as a place like Tamworth and I think spending untold millions of pounds to spare a small number of people a fifteen minute walk is just not realistic.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

There used to be platforms on the Wigan line at Lostock Junction (as it then was) - until Marples/Beeching closed the entire station. When it was reopened, they only built platforms on the Bolton - Preston line.

But back then it was four-track to Bolton, not two. Even the most optimistic amongst us could only hope for a return to this layout ...

 

[Darren R]

It would probably be cheaper to reinstate the Burscough curves, with Ormskirk - Preston services reversing at Burscough Junction, which is probably more convenient for the town centre than any new station at your suggested location.

Managed to find the document where the possibility of a new interchange at Burscough was mooted - NetworkRail's 2008 RUS for the NorthWest (a document since superceeded.) It has five different options, ranging from an upgrade of Preston - Ormskirk to allow an hourly clockface timetable (Option 1) right through to full electrification (Option 5 - a plan not to be progressed.)

The new station is Option 2, to be developed further, but NR admit there are a number of potential drawbacks and problems, amongst which is the detrimental affect it may have on their ambitions to re-instate the southern chord. The preferred option was exactly that - reinstated soutern chord allowing an hourly Southport - Ormskirk service connecting with Preston trains at Burscough Junction. Altogether more sensible, in my humble opinion!

 

[The Planner]

Ormskirk can't go hourly without a lot of line speed improvements which look like costing too much to get past a cost benefit analysis.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Ormskirk can't go hourly without a lot of line speed improvements which look like costing too much to get past a cost benefit analysis.

Surely all it needs is another unit or two... The loop at Rufford sees very little use at present. Of course finding said spare units is tricky, but perhaps once all the knitting goes up there might be an option.

 

[tbtc]

Not worth putting this in a separate thread (though it's not where lines cross) - were there ever platforms on the Glossop/ Penistone line at Hyde North?

It's surprised me in the past that there'd be a two platform station on the Marple line so shortly after the junction (rather than platforms on both lines).

A bit like Dore (in Sheffield) I suppose.

 

[David Goddard]

My post in a previous thread would fit here:

Merging of the Reading - Guildford line and the Ascot - Aldershot line between Blackwater and North Camp/ Ash Vale, such that:

1. A new 0.25 miles twin track link from a point 1 mile South of Blackwater Station on the Blackwater Valley Line to a point 0.75 miles North of Frimley Station on the Ascot to Ash Vale Line.

2. Diversion of the Ascot to Aldershot line from a point 0.25 miles South of Frimley Station for a distance of 0.25 miles, to a point 0.25 miles North of Farnborough North Station on the Blackwater Valley Line. The present route between Frimley Station and Ash Vale Station would be closed.

3. Closure of Farnborough North station and replacement by a new two level four platform station "Farnborough Parkway" at the point where the Blackwater Valley Line crosses the South Western Main Line. The station would have two platforms serving on the Relief Lines of the South West Main Line and two platforms serving the Blackwater Valley Line. It would have direct access to the A331 Blackwater Valley Road with a large car park provided in the space between the Blackwater Valley line and the A331 to the South East of the new station.

4. A new 0.25 miles single track link from a point 0.5 miles South of North Camp Station on the Blackwater Valley Line to a point 0.75 miles South of Ash Vale Station on the Brookwood to Alton Line.

5. Closure of North Camp and Ash Vale stations and replacement by a new two level station "Ash Vale" at the point where the Blackwater Valley Line crosses the Brookwood to Alton Line. The station would have five platforms two serving the Brookwood to Alton line, two serving the Blackwater Valley line and a fifth adjacent to the link line referred to in point (4) above.

6. Electrification of the railway at 750v DC third rail between Wokingham & Ash and between Guildford & Reigate, together with the new pieces of line referred to in points 1, 2 and 4 above.

7. Following completion of part (6) above, transfer of the Reading - Guildford - Redhill - Gatwick Airport services to South West Trains (or whichever company may succeed them).

The existing railway between Blackwater and North Camp Stations would remain to avoid adding delay to fast trains on the Reading - Guildford route. Link (1) above could be an optional part of the package as this part has the lowest real gain.

New Services:
Present Reading - Redhill service speeded up to operate Semi fast between Reading and Guildford.
Additional hourly Reading - Aldershot and Reading - Guildford services calling at all stations.
Combined service will provide four trains per hour between Reading and Farnborough Cross

Present 2tph Ascot - Guildford services revised so that 1tph terminates Aldershot, the other operates direct between Frimley, Ash Vale and Ash.
New half hourly Aldershot - Guildford Shuttle Service

 

[The Planner]

Surely all it needs is another unit or two... The loop at Rufford sees very little use at present. Of course finding said spare units is tricky, but perhaps once all the knitting goes up there might be an option.

That is the issue, Northern want it as a one unit only line, makes better use of resources.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That is the issue, Northern want it as a one unit only line, makes better use of resources.

As you say it makes better use of resources- being as they are now limited! In the future when the Northern DMU fleet is not spread so thinly (and perhaps a new franchise with scope for growth!), then what's to say that the benefit of an hourly service (possibly extended to Blackpool South) won't outweigh the cost of having 2 units and crews on the Ormskirks? This is a route that whilst it'll never return to being a true main line as it was in the past still has a lot of untapped potential and demand is currently suppressed by the poor service. Apologies for the off topic diversion, again!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That is the issue, Northern want it as a one unit only line, makes better use of resources.

Presumably the reasoning there is that running two trains to make an hourly service would be poor use of resources because, with an average 31 minute journey time, trains would be spending 58 minutes out of every 2 hours waiting at a terminus. And yes, I agree, that would be bad use of resources.

However I would presume that if the service were extended (for example, as 61653 HTAFC has suggested, to Blackpool South), that argument wouldn't necessarily apply and it may be possible to run an hourly service more efficiently?

 

[The Planner]

Northern have only ever mentioned doing it with one unit, not any extensions to Blackpool. Would be surprised if they hadnt thought about that though.

 

[The Ham]

Merging of the Reading - Guildford line and the Ascot - Aldershot line between Blackwater and North Camp/ Ash Vale, such that:

1. A new 0.25 miles twin track link from a point 1 mile South of Blackwater Station on the Blackwater Valley Line to a point 0.75 miles North of Frimley Station on the Ascot to Ash Vale Line.

2. Diversion of the Ascot to Aldershot line from a point 0.25 miles South of Frimley Station for a distance of 0.25 miles, to a point 0.25 miles North of Farnborough North Station on the Blackwater Valley Line. The present route between Frimley Station and Ash Vale Station would be closed.

3. Closure of Farnborough North station and replacement by a new two level four platform station "Farnborough Parkway" at the point where the Blackwater Valley Line crosses the South Western Main Line. The station would have two platforms serving on the Relief Lines of the South West Main Line and two platforms serving the Blackwater Valley Line. It would have direct access to the A331 Blackwater Valley Road with a large car park provided in the space between the Blackwater Valley line and the A331 to the South East of the new station.

4. A new 0.25 miles single track link from a point 0.5 miles South of North Camp Station on the Blackwater Valley Line to a point 0.75 miles South of Ash Vale Station on the Brookwood to Alton Line.

5. Closure of North Camp and Ash Vale stations and replacement by a new two level station "Ash Vale" at the point where the Blackwater Valley Line crosses the Brookwood to Alton Line. The station would have five platforms two serving the Brookwood to Alton line, two serving the Blackwater Valley line and a fifth adjacent to the link line referred to in point (4) above.

6. Electrification of the railway at 750v DC third rail between Wokingham & Ash and between Guildford & Reigate, together with the new pieces of line referred to in points 1, 2 and 4 above.

7. Following completion of part (6) above, transfer of the Reading - Guildford - Redhill - Gatwick Airport services to South West Trains (or whichever company may succeed them).

The existing railway between Blackwater and North Camp Stations would remain to avoid adding delay to fast trains on the Reading - Guildford route. Link (1) above could be an optional part of the package as this part has the lowest real gain.

New Services:
Present Reading - Redhill service speeded up to operate Semi fast between Reading and Guildford.
Additional hourly Reading - Aldershot and Reading - Guildford services calling at all stations.
Combined service will provide four trains per hour between Reading and Farnborough Cross

Present 2tph Ascot - Guildford services revised so that 1tph terminates Aldershot, the other operates direct between Frimley, Ash Vale and Ash.
New half hourly Aldershot - Guildford Shuttle Service

... or for a lot less money:

1) rebuild the curve to allow trains to run Farnborough Main-Frimley

2) build a new curve to run under the main line to create a grade seprated junction to be able to run the reverse without crossing the main line on the flat

3) buid a new Frimley Junction station (about a 750m walk from Farnborough North)

4) run a new service Ascot-Basingstoke with the possibility of such a service calling at new stations (if viable) at Old Dean, Watchmoor Park, Frimley Green, South Wood, Fleet West, Old Basing and Basingstoke West

5) extend the new serive to Sailsbury (once electrified) with the option of extra stations (i.e. Oakley)

6) as 6 above

Although not as good at providing connections between the two north south routes I would suggest that would only be fairly local people that would find such connections useful (i.e. as soon as someone is at Reading/Guildford they can adjust there route to go on the correct line). The suggested new service can also fit within the exsting trains (maybe with a slight adjustment to the Ascot-Guildford service) and doesn't require any additional stops on the main line from existing services, as would be the case for your Farnborough Parkway station.

It would however provide a metro type service for an area which has a lot of housing and a lot of employment and provide a lot of new journey opertuniites which currently are not viable routes (e.g. Fleet to Camberley currently requires changing at Brookwood and Ash Vale, which takes over an hour compares with about 50min to cycle it - acording to Google maps).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The other thing to do would be to build a new station by the retail park near to Frimley and then the walk to change between the two lines would be about 500m (could be done post electrification and still being able to fit in the existing service slots where the service runs on other lines)

 

[Darren R]

Presumably the reasoning there is that running two trains to make an hourly service would be poor use of resources because, with an average 31 minute journey time, trains would be spending 58 minutes out of every 2 hours waiting at a terminus. And yes, I agree, that would be bad use of resources.

However I would presume that if the service were extended (for example, as 61653 HTAFC has suggested, to Blackpool South), that argument wouldn't necessarily apply and it may be possible to run an hourly service more efficiently?

Slightly at risk of this thread turning into one about the Preston to Ormskirk line, but anyways...

It wouldn't need an extra unit to introduce an hourly, clock-face timetable. The NorthWest RUS says:

Description:
Improved Frequency and Journey Times.
– Perform remedial signalling work (abolish signal boxes and automate crossings) controlling the line from Preston PSB, and make targeted improvements to linespeed, all of which reduce the Preston – Ormskirk
journey time, and allow the service frequency to become hourly with the existing single unit and crew.

It also states CP5 as the Delivery Period.

Extending them to Blackpool South is a bit of a non-starter though: single track from Ormskirk to Farington Curve Jn and then again from Kirkham North Jn - the slightest problem would very quickly degenerate to utter chaos! Not only that but NetworkRail seem to be peculiarly wedded to running Blackpool South trains to/from Colne. Performance is often an issue and NR have examined splitting the service at Preston more than once and have come down against it every time.

Incidentally the Ormskirk - Prestons are running to an hourly t/t during the Wigan North Western engineering blockade, and are extended to run non-stop from Preston to Blackpool North. Turnarounds at both ends are very tight!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I had meant to include a caveat for the proposed extension along the Fylde coast line that assumed the construction of the proposed passing loop towards Blackpool South. Must've had some sort of brain freeze when typing! My main reason for suggesting this though, was due to the lack of paths along the East Lancs line for the extra services if the Blackpool Souths eventually go 2tph.

 

[The Planner]

Slightly at risk of this thread turning into one about the Preston to Ormskirk line, but anyways...

It also states CP5 as the Delivery Period.

The RUS says lots of things, but it never tells you how they are going to be paid for, at the minute it is costing too much to be viable.

 

[Antman]

The point of an interchange isn't really to provide additional services for the area the station is located in, it's to provide new journey opportunities by changing at that station. That's why it's - umm - called an interchange.

The obvious way to implement an interchange here is by moving Wembley Central to the other side of Wembley High Road, so - no additional station on the Bakerloo line. As I recall, the existing Wembley Central station is not exactly the nicest of stations anyway, so rebuilding could be quite welcome. There would be an additional station on the Chiltern line, but since it would be next to a medium sized town centre (which the line currently runs past without stopping), that's arguably a good thing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Fair point about the savings being marginal. However missing out the entire Woolwich line is a pretty huge omission (the Woolwich line trains via Lewisham don't stop at New Cross btw so no interchange from them either). Also, New Cross only gets an Overground train every 15 minutes. A station where I suggested would see a much more frequent Overground service, giving massively better connection opportunities. (As well as allowing travel from the SouthEastern area to the Norwood Junction line without going into London Bridge).

I really cannot see how the cost could be justified, I think I'd just walk down the road from NX to NXG if I wanted to go towards Norwood Junction etc.

A connection to the Woolwich line would be useful but that's about the only advantage and of course there is already the DLR to Greenwich and Woolwich from across the river.

The money would be far better spent putting in LO platforms at Brixton.

 

[PHILIPE]

The current Platform 4 at Wrexham General used to be part of Wrexham Exchange Station on the current Bidston route. Historically it was the former LNER (previously GC) station and Wrexham General was Great Western station.
They became merged into 1 station and a footbridge to access from the original General Platforms.

 

[Darren R]

The RUS says lots of things, but it never tells you how they are going to be paid for, at the minute it is costing too much to be viable.

Ah well - I didn't bother quoting that bit of the RUS: rather assumed it went without saying!

 

[cle]

I really cannot see how the cost could be justified, I think I'd just walk down the road from NX to NXG if I wanted to go towards Norwood Junction etc.

A connection to the Woolwich line would be useful but that's about the only advantage and of course there is already the DLR to Greenwich and Woolwich from across the river.

The money would be far better spent putting in LO platforms at Brixton.

Absolutely, and that's on topic-ish as one line does sort of cross another there. Would be a fantastic project and improve South London connectivity a lot.

How about adding high level platforms at Brockley, which would be on the 2tph Victoria - Dartford service?

Nowhere near as costly as Brixton, and maybe not as useful - but would allow some new connections - Croydon to Lewisham/Blackheath/Dartford seems a decent one without going into (and paying for) London Bridge.

Brockley is a popular area there days - access to Victoria could be attractive to passengers whose 'Central London' service has been demoted compared to the Overground. Much quicker than the via Crystal Palace service.

The frequency might one day improve, there is a lot of pressure mounting and the Tanners Hill doubling might help make it easier to expand.

 

[12CSVT]

If it hadn't been for a Homebase store which opened a few years ago, there could have been potential for a major interchange at West Hampstead, encompassing the Thameslink route, North London Line, Jubilee Line, Metropolitan Line and possibly the Chiltern line (although the latter would have probably required the Jubilee and Metropolitan line tracks to be slewed by some distance to accomodate any Chiltern line platforms).
This could have also replaced no fewer than five existing stations within a small distance of each other (ie, West Hampstead Thameslink, West Hampstead (Underground), West Hampstead (North London Line), Finchley Road & Frognal and Finchley Road (Underground).

 

[mister-sparky]

If it hadn't been for a Homebase store which opened a few years ago, there could have been potential for a major interchange at West Hampstead, encompassing the Thameslink route, North London Line, Jubilee Line, Metropolitan Line and possibly the Chiltern line (although the latter would have probably required the Jubilee and Metropolitan line tracks to be slewed by some distance to accomodate any Chiltern line platforms).
This could have also replaced no fewer than five existing stations within a small distance of each other (ie, West Hampstead Thameslink, West Hampstead (Underground), West Hampstead (North London Line), Finchley Road & Frognal and Finchley Road (Underground).

Isn't something like this still in planning?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absolutely, and that's on topic-ish as one line does sort of cross another there. Would be a fantastic project and improve South London connectivity a lot.

How about adding high level platforms at Brockley, which would be on the 2tph Victoria - Dartford service?

Nowhere near as costly as Brixton, and maybe not as useful - but would allow some new connections - Croydon to Lewisham/Blackheath/Dartford seems a decent one without going into (and paying for) London Bridge.

Brockley is a popular area there days - access to Victoria could be attractive to passengers whose 'Central London' service has been demoted compared to the Overground. Much quicker than the via Crystal Palace service.

The frequency might one day improve, there is a lot of pressure mounting and the Tanners Hill doubling might help make it easier to expand.

Ditto for this. "Brockley Cross" as it would be called, is a real proposal they were looking into.

 

[mr_jrt]

Isn't something like this still in planning?

Think it's died a death, unfortunately.

This was my vision for the station.

 

[edwin_m]

The development on Finchley Road isn't just a Homebase, it is a good-sized mall with several major shops, restaurants and a cinema - but let down by the only public transport access being bus stops and Finchley Road tube a hundred metres or so down a very busy road. It's a shame they didn't take the opportunity to include accesses onto all three lines and good walking routes between them. This would have created an attractive interchange and also good footfall for the shops!