How can capacity on the West London Line be increased?

[Minstral25]

I doubt it. Many people have different interpretations of “rammed”

I can only say when I used to commute from Imperil Wharf on WLL before Covid, I'd often have to let two or three trains go by before I could physically get on and when I did I was squeezed in very tightly.

That's rammed in my opinion.

(although accept I haven't used since Covid)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The West London Line, in my opinion, could do with a far more frequent Overground service. Hampered by freight of course. If it needed, how can extra capacity be released on the WLL? The would have been space at West Brom for through tracks, but they appear to have been built over now.

If the trains are overcrowded, the easiest way would be to extend them to 8 coaches, though I believe that would require platform changes at Clapham Junction 8-car fits everywhere else as the platforms were built/extended for an 8x20m Southern service.

 

[cle]

If the trains are overcrowded, the easiest way would be to extend them to 8 coaches, though I believe that would require platform changes at Clapham Junction 8-car fits everywhere else as the platforms were built/extended for an 8x20m Southern service.

I would think a 6 car project (in conjunction with the ELL and a big supplementary car order) would make the most sense. Given it would affect 5tph. Especially as Gunnersbury-Richmond are ready too. And most of the South London stations. Canada Water is the pig.

But yes, be it 1tph or 2tph, Southern should be 5 car minimum, and ideally 8.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But yes, be it 1tph or 2tph, Southern should be 5 car minimum, and ideally 8.

I've long said the Southern needs to be 8 car whether 1tph or two. If it went to 2tph the loadings would increase massively because it would become useful for far more journeys due to improved connections, so longer trains would still be needed. Though 5 was just about adequate on some quieter trains.

 

[PGAT]

1tph and 4 coaches has turned many people off travelling the WLL. Southern will claim that it’s matching demand, but only because it’s turning down customers and suppressing demand.

2tph and 8 coaches SHOULD be the bare minimum.

 

[mr_jrt]

If the trains are overcrowded, the easiest way would be to extend them to 8 coaches, though I believe that would require platform changes at Clapham Junction 8-car fits everywhere else as the platforms were built/extended for an 8x20m Southern service.

As mentioned on the other thread on the WLL, you could easily extend platform 2 to 8 car, and platform 1 can fit 6 cars (7 maybe?), but it would be easy to extend the platform over the junction to the defunct unusable platform 1/0 to give the required length.

I don't know how easy it would be to get a) 8 cars into Willesden Junction HL, b) 8 cars into a reversing siding beyond. That's the bare minimum to swap the Southern services for LO shuttles, but the lack of slow line platforms means a tortiously slow journey north to Harrow or Wembley Central to interchange to the AC line service, making an interchange very unattractive. Not to mention the distribution issues of dumping 8 cars worth of passengers at Willesden Junction with only 5 car LO services to disseminate them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Southern service is well used and should not be removed. I would only support its removal if mainline platforms at Willesden were provided.

 

[cle]

I don't think anyone is suggesting ditching the Southerns. Terminating at Willesden is also not very easy - now with 10tph. Plus 8 cars onto the NLL wouldn't work

Best would be 5-6tph NLL/WLL of 6 cars and 2tph Southerns of 5/8 cars. To take up another slot on the WCML, it should be 8 cars. And if a WCML slow drops (which might be the right call, intra-London and off peak/leisure travel is back way more than linear commuting) - then that should be 8 cars and preserve some shorter journeys (e.g. Harrow-Watford, or include Bushey perhaps)

 

[Bald Rick]

So, little more than arbitrarily, Ripple Lane to Wembley/Willesden as a starter for 10?

That does nothing for the West London Line. Besides, today , a grand total of 15 trains have run between the Barking area and Wembley / Willesden in ‘passenger hours’. (Total, both directions). Not much case for a tunnel, I’d say.

but I'm sure Crossrail would like to have the GE electric lines all to themselves.

They already do, in passenger hours, with a very few exceptions. The liners to from Felixstowe are on the mains.

 

[Starmill]

I would think a 6 car project (in conjunction with the ELL and a big supplementary car order) would make the most sense. Given it would affect 5tph. Especially as Gunnersbury-Richmond are ready too. And most of the South London stations. Canada Water is the pig.

But yes, be it 1tph or 2tph, Southern should be 5 car minimum, and ideally 8.

You could probably run 2tph Clapham Junction p17 - Shepherds Bush in addition to the North London line service as it is. I doubt in reality that would be better however or that there's really a problem with the current service.

 

[PGAT]

Pre-covid there were 2tph between East Croydon and Watford Junction in the peaks. It can be done.

 

[Starmill]

Pre-covid there were 2tph between East Croydon and Watford Junction. It can be done.

It was 1tph East Croydon (after being South Croydon for a bit) - Milton Keynes Central plus a handful of additional services.

 

[mr_jrt]

That does nothing for the West London Line. Besides, today , a grand total of 15 trains have run between the Barking area and Wembley / Willesden in ‘passenger hours’. (Total, both directions). Not much case for a tunnel, I’d say.

Usual caveats apply - there's not going to be much traffic when there isn't the capacity to run it. I don't know how you measure suppressed demand, but if if you could offer twice the freight paths at half the cost, you might end up with sufficient traffic.

I figured a significant proportion of the WLL freight traffic would be coming from Thamesport as aside from Southampton, that's the only major southern container port I could think of. I guess you must get some traffic from places like Dover, but pretty much anywhere in Kent is going to have access to RL via HS1 as the network is so comprehensive. As mentioned previously, I know little of the various smaller flows across the south and how they could be routed away from the WLL. Can you offer some examples of what is using those WLL paths?

They already do, in passenger hours, with a very few exceptions. The liners to from Felixstowe are on the mains.

Ah, thanks. I recalled reading that it was one of the problems/concerns Crossrail had in the conception phase. Maybe I am confusing the eastern side with the western side.

 

[cle]

You could probably run 2tph Clapham Junction p17 - Shepherds Bush in addition to the North London line service as it is. I doubt in reality that would be better however or that there's really a problem with the current service.

In theory, it could. Shepherd's Bush ideally should have been built as a tripled section and with three platforms. Might have been useful for freight too, especially if extended up towards Mitre Lane.

Whichever solve for OOC WLL - however that happens (and it really should) - it might be able to include a third platform/line, or a bay even - for these types of frequency shuttles. WJ won't be as critical to reach for all services, and the NLL may well be full with 10tph.

 

[mr_jrt]

I don't think there was room at Shepherds Bush for anything more than was built due to the encroachment of the West cross route's slip roads on the former rail alignment. I guess you could concievably have squeezed in another line on the west side of the formation before Westfield was built, but doing so now has to be in the far too hard category, unless you also plan on either dropping the railway down or raising the roads up higher so you can get more rails lines under the roads.

 

[cle]

Yeah I think it's impossible now. And the platforms are fairly narrow. I would think tripling north and south of there (to extend the Olympia line) might be of some use, for freight perhaps - or turning short services - but SB would just become more of a bottleneck.

 

[mr_jrt]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that common sense prevails and those monstrous 60s roads are removed. Maybe then.

 

[PGAT]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that common sense prevails and those monstrous 60s roads are removed. Maybe then.

View attachment 129146

While I don't disagree there will be no appetite from any parties to actually do that. It's like throwing a child's ice cream on the ground and telling them to eat fruit instead.

 

[cle]

The West Cross Route is not especially busy. It probably could go, for housing. Or be tunneled (even though it rises) - or halved in lane-age.

But that in itself wouldn't solve the WLL topic at hand.

 

[JonathanH]

I guess you could concievably have squeezed in another line on the west side of the formation before Westfield was built

I think Shepherds Bush Station was designed with passive provision for the West London tram on the western side.

 

[stuu]

The West Cross Route is not especially busy. It probably could go, for housing. Or be tunneled (even though it rises) - or halved in lane-age.

But that in itself wouldn't solve the WLL topic at hand.

It carries 70,000 vehicles per day. It is one of the busiest roads in inner London. Whether that is a good thing is a different matter of course

 

[Bald Rick]

I think Shepherds Bush Station was designed with passive provision for the West London tram on the western side.

It was, albeit the tram was expected to be several metres higher than the WLL tracks.