Could / should Clapham Junction be moved?

[MotCO]

In this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ate-the-south-western-franchise.277994/page-2 there were a couple of comments that Clapham Junction should be moved and rebuilt. The rounded platforms make despatch difficult and slow, and there are some large gaps between trains and platforms.

I assume that the suggestion is that it is moved eastwards, allowing lines to be straightened, but there will still be curves as the alignment is moved out to accommodate the platforms. Aside from a lot of demolition, how could this work?





It would have to fit in between the Croydon lines coming from the south-west, and before the Victoria lines head north, so prsumably would have to be between Falcon Road and the A3220. Even then, the lines would need to move out on the north and south sides to accommodate the platform widths. For easier circulation, could it be a double-deck station? This would reduce the footprint and the overall north / south dimensions, and with less platform curvatures.

The cost would no doubt be horrendous. It could improve the Overground (and Underground?) connections, and maybe Crossrail 2.

Time for the crayonistas!

 

[JonathanH]

From https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/study-sussex-part-5-clapham-junction/

Abortive schemes​

There have been various schemes to resolve the issues at Clapham Junction. In the early days of privatisation, Sea Containers, who were bidding for a franchise, proposed a radical scheme involving relocating the station. In those early Railtrack days there was a bit of a presumption it would be the TOCs who would lead the way on enhancements. That first round of franchising did have some interesting ideas inspired by TOCs. It did seem though that the scheme had not be fully, or even partially, costed and in any case there was not any absolute commitment to invoke the scheme if a TOC got the franchise. It was also the case that a short franchise of about seven years would be woefully short compared with time it would take to fully implement such a solution and it would be far from clear what would happen if the franchise were not renewed.

In a similar vein to Sea Containers there was the scheme, probably initially developed by Railtrack, for two enormous towers at Clapham Junction to fund a rebuilt station. Not surprisingly Wandsworth Council were having none of it and that may have been influenced by Railtrack having a record of not being too enthusiastic in actually getting down to implement schemes that they were supposedly committed to – Thameslink 2000 being a particular case in point.

Mind you, later in that piece the author (in 2014) wrote rather optimistically:

There are plans for a Crossrail 2 station here in around 2026.

Getting back to the points above:

It would have to fit in between the Croydon lines coming from the south-west, and before the Victoria lines head north, so prsumably would have to be between Falcon Road and the A3220. Even then, the lines would need to move out on the north and south sides to accommodate the platform widths.

The platforms 1 to 6 side of the station isn't that bad as far as curves go. Platform 7 access from the west is really slow. Platform 8 is too curved to be used. Platforms 16 and 17 have a reverse curve. It almost seems as if the station would need to have staggered platforms rather than them all being in line.

 

[devon_belle]

I made a thread on improving Clapham Jnc last year, which discusses various aspects. Worth a read if you're interested, there were some interesting comments: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/improving-clapham-junction.252554/

In 2001 when re-bidding was done for 20 year franchises, SWT proposed various improvements on the London end of their network. For example in this article (quoted below):

February 16, 2001 10:04: The ten-mile track between Surbiton and Waterloo could be gold-plated in a proposed £3.5bn railway overhaul unveiled by South West Trains last week. And stations will be enlarged to accommodate longer trains and a turn-up and go Tube-style service.
In the train operators franchise bid to the strategic rail authority, it pledged to rebuild the railway track along the networks busiest stretch despite it being Railtracks responsibility.

A SWT spokesman said it hoped the new track would be the most reliable in the country with new technology to predict signal failures. It mirrored proposals currently under consideration to make south London a Metro area with trains running every 15 minutes. South West Trains, under its parent company Stagecoach, is up against two other companies bidding for control of the network, with an announcement expected later this year.

The exact details of the "gold-plating" escape me*. I don't know if relocating Clapham Junction was only part of Sea Containers' unsuccessful bid, or whether it was adopted by SWT when they won the 20 year franchise in 2001. The Strategic Rail Authority cut the franchise length from 20 to 3 years by 2002, so presumably by that point the idea of TOC-led infrastructure enhancements was dead in the water.

Various schemes I've heard – which I have probably conflated with other unrelated ideas – were the relocation of Clapham Jnc to a new site to the east. A bi-directional fifth (or a sixth to make a new pair?) track from Surbiton, which has been talked about (to Wimbledon) since before World War I and is mentioned by NR in one of their 2010s proposals. I'm not sure if that would result in any changes to Clapham Jnc. Obviously some investment and improvements must be warranted if Crossrail 2 ever happens. A second footbridge at the London end seems to be the only realistic improvement we may see this side of 2050, and there's currently no plans for that as I understand.

The station is a fascinating phenomenon and deserving of much investment (and speculation on here!). Personally, I would support relocating the station into a super-Reading style station, but there are several difficulties as others have and will mention. Serious consideration to how a new station would fit around the demands of locals/buses is needed. Do you close Queenstown Road/Battersea Park? I would vote no, as people are famously lazy and taking their 'local' station away would just make more traffic on the roads. Instead, could suburban platforms remain open as a 'Clapham Common', etc, station to serve people who live nearby and save them a considerable walk? How do you interface with the overground lines – does the station become multilevel? The crayons have lots to do...

 

[30907]

The only way this might work would be to move the station 800m East to the site of the existing carriage washer where there is some space (not, I think, enough for 6 island platforms though).
You would need supplementary platforms on the lines adjacent to Latchmere Rd for the Southern Watford service, and by Knowsley Road/Sheepcote La for the Overground which would need to operate as a through service.
You would then also need to make provision for regulating WLL freight which AIUI can currently be done utilising the Longhedge-Latchmere section.
I can't see it happening for practical reasons, even before you consider cost and the impact on the local community.

 

[JonathanH]

The double decker station might be the alternative approach to moving the station. Essentially take the Wimbledon route 'downstairs', and have the Brighton line platforms on top or the other way round.

Alternatively, could the access into Clapham Yard and sidings themselves be taken below the level of the railway (using the land by the carriage washer) and the air rights be sold for development?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Tunneling and having a lower station would seem to be an option I would investigate.

 

[MotCO]

The other consideration is how services could continue during the rebuilding works! London Bridge was doable; Clapham Junction, with any double-decking excavation works would be a nightmare.

 

[HSTEd]

I think you'd have to build an underground station and switch at least some services over to that.

That would create the room necessary to rebuild the surface station, although an all underground solution might be attractive if it allows easy redevelopment of the entire area.
Of course, an all underground solution would also allow total grade separation and the rearrangement of services to any pattern deemed convenient.

 

[JonathanH]

I think you'd have to build an underground station and switch at least some services over to that.

Yes, the other bit may be building the Northern Line station underground at the same time. The mainline station would need to be fairly deep in any case to get under Falcon Road.

 

[Helvellyn]

It depends what else was behind the proposals over twenty years ago. Sea Containers and Stagecoach would have announced headline catching initiatives but due to being commercial bids the detail wouldn't be put in the public domain.

A rebuilt Clapham might have included a massive reorganisation of London are depots for example - build a new super depot at Feltham, close Strawberry Hill and Staines, close Clapham Yard (or reduce in size). If you don't have a depot at Clapham you straight away gain space by not needing the entry lines and carriage washers. If you left platforms 1-6 in place, you only need to build five island platforms (i know, that's quite a lot in that area). Two islands for South Western, three for Southern.

An alternate might have been to just move the South Western Mainline platforms eastwards. So still close Clapham Yard, build two new islands, then demolish platforms 7/8 and 9/10 to realign the tracks northwards. With no platforms there you can rebuild the Southern platforms, moving them Northward to create new islands in a phased fashion.

Whatever you do would be disruptive for a few years and any rebuilt station would likely need large above platform circulating areas and extended walking times between the three parts of the station.

 

[Basil Jet]

A new Battersea Interchange could be created by building 220 metre travelators between an enhanced Battersea Park and an enhanced Queenstown Road. Clapham Junction should be downgraded to a local only station and the platforms on fast lines removed, using the space to allow the remaining platforms to be straightened. A little demolition would allow the Victoria - Bromley North trains to call at the new interchange as well, facilitating journeys from Kent to Hampshire.

 

[cle]

Staggering is interesting. This works well at Shibuya with the two elevated lines, and they have 15 car services.

The Windsor sides may not been much change - although another face or island would be handy for more LO / Southern WLL services.

Maybe the easiest is a four track underground station for the SWT fasts.

Inner island platform for calling services (would need to be as wide as P9/10!) - and sides for fasts which may pass at speed.

For the slows I’d remove 17 entirely.

 

[JonathanH]

For the slows I’d remove 17 entirely.

Would that be necessary if the Brighton lines could be moved on top of the South Western lines. I think you would ideally have six platforms for the Victoria route, to make it easier for the West London Line to feed both the slow and fast lines.

The scale of the redesign would mean all of the equivalent platform faces to 7 to 17 being somewhere different. Ideally six platform faces for each route.

The working assumption is that the South Western Lines go downstairs but it could be the other way round with the Brighton route platforms downstairs.

 

[Ghostbus]

I would drastically extend and completely remodel the southern portion to form a 500m+ long curved footprint, running as close to the PCS building as possible, with a midpoint over Falcon Road. In the process shifting the western platform ends further east, to about where the footbridge is now. The platforms are then much narrower, but they're at least all on a much shallower curve with the same broad SSW to NEE alignment, much more like a traditional main line station.

Being so long, you can then ensure trains never conflict by boarding/alighting on opposite sides of the same part of a narrow island. Possibly being allocated dynamically to shave seconds off signalling, but more probably with a simple rule that has all trains stop at the extreme far end of their face in normal service.

You're going to need a second level however, to act as a footbridge and concourse. But there should at least be enough space to allow a full train load to disembark, get their bearings and head for the nearest stair/ramp/lift before the next train arrives. That's maybe where dynamic allocation of the A or B face comes in handy. Maybe. Might only be certified safe with platform doors.

You're still going to have to deal with the fact that to build this thing, the lines need to be severed completely to demolish the existing station and realign all the tracks, with construction then competing with through trains only. But the upside is that you're not going to need to move, build on or demolish anything that you don't already own. Unfortunately that seems to include a signal box and what appears to be major power supplies, but it is what it is. You either want nice things or you don't.

 

[30907]

A new Battersea Interchange could be created by building 220 metre travelators between an enhanced Battersea Park and an enhanced Queenstown Road.

An interesting idea, which I wondered about, but you'd need quite a land take to add 5 platforms at Queenstown Road, and you'd presumably want platforms on the Longhedge lines for LO services. A connection to Battersea PS tube as well?

 

[JonathanH]

An interesting idea, which I wondered about, but you'd need quite a land take to add 5 platforms at Queenstown Road, and you'd presumably want platforms on the Longhedge lines for LO services. A connection to Battersea PS tube as well?

Without a change in the land use in that area I'm not really sure that the use case for a Battersea Interchange would be. Is the suggestion that it would replace Clapham Junction? I get that it may enable connections to the route via Herne Hill but that doesn't seem enough justification.

 

[cle]

Would that be necessary if the Brighton lines could be moved on top of the South Western lines. I think you would ideally have six platforms for the Victoria route, to make it easier for the West London Line to feed both the slow and fast lines.

The scale of the redesign would mean all of the equivalent platform faces to 7 to 17 being somewhere different. Ideally six platform faces for each route.

The working assumption is that the South Western Lines go downstairs but it could be the other way round with the Brighton route platforms downstairs.

I was thinking more as a platform face - but keep the line for freight / avoiding if needed. But yes you’d likely have another two platforms from SWT

 

[A S Leib]

London Bridge was doable

What were services like then? I'm guessing all Thameslink services went via Elephant & Castle (before Horsham and Rainham were on Thameslink) and Southeastern services running nonstop between Waterloo East / Cannon Street and Lewisham, Orpington etc.?

 

[JonathanH]

What were services like then? I'm guessing all Thameslink services went via Elephant & Castle (before Horsham and Rainham were on Thameslink)

Yes, the entire Thameslink service ran via Elephant & Castle from 2015 to 2018 (and almost entirely at peak times prior to that).

and Southeastern services running nonstop between Waterloo East / Cannon Street and Lewisham, Orpington etc.?

Non stop for shorter period, although not all could stop prior to 2018 anyway.

As the poster above points out, the work would be phased with the underground route and portals needing to be built first. It would take a long time, but equally the abandoned Croydon remodelling was to be a ten year project (2023 to 2033) to add two platforms and some additional flyovers.

 

[HSTEd]

Without a change in the land use in that area I'm not really sure that the use case for a Battersea Interchange would be. Is the suggestion that it would replace Clapham Junction? I get that it may enable connections to the route via Herne Hill but that doesn't seem enough justification.

Well, if such an interchange was built it would probably replace Clapham Junction - once you spend all that money you may as well!

Being able to have a single seat interchange between all Victoria and Waterloo trains would certainly be worth something, although not sure if it would be enough to justify the bill!

But if an enormously expensive rebuild of Clapham Junction is eventually needed either way, it might be worthwhile.

 

[alf]

I agree with cle at post 12.
Put the up & down Waterloo Woking fasts underground (& it will have to be deep to get under the main road that passes at right angles under all the lines at CJ station)
Give the underground station 4 platforms so that slow dispatching does not affect a following train.

Then use the 75 foot width the redundant 3 platform fast lines took up. to move the Woking slow lines & the Brighton lines westward to make their platforms less curved & provide an extra Victoria up fast platform.
Despatch times on the current Brighton up fast platform
can be painfully slow & seem to need 3 or 4 despatchers at busy times because of the curve & sight obstructions.

The new tunnel platforms will have to be well on the country side of the present fast platforms so there is space for the 4 fast tracks to merge into the original 2 fast tracks before the carriage wash on the Waterloo side, & the obstacle of the west London lines passing below at approximate right angles.