London's Future - cross transport exchanges - superhub

[sbf kent]

Is the future of London a focus on out of London exchange points, perhaps points like, Old Oak Common. Barnet?, Reading, Stratford. Luton Airport Parkway, East Croydon, where passengers transiting London change services - taking pressure off London Terminals - with express services either calling or terminating at key London hubs. I know the exist but something analogist to superloop bus services, superhub, promoted by TfL? Thameslink, Elizabeth Lines offer high speed, same platform services as an alternative to the tube. Crossrail 2 perhaps being the missing link, Other rail and transport links could focus on these radial transit points to increase passenger numbers?

 

[JonathanH]

Is the future of London a focus on out of London exchange points, perhaps points like, Old Oak Common. Barnet?, Reading, Strafford. Luton Airport Parkway, East Croydon, where passengers transiting London change services - taking pressure off London Terminals - with express services either calling or terminating at key London hubs.

Probably not. The demand will always be best served by running to the terminals.

For instance, there has been no agreement as to how to serve Heathrow from the South because the demand is too disperate.

The money to pay for this sort of loop would deflect from other projects based on concentrated demand.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm not sure.

Have a look at TfL's report: Central London Rail Termini: Analysing passengers' onward travel patterns
Almost all passengers arriving into London termini are heading to central destinations. There are very few "transiting London".

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf

For what it's worth, my view is that London needs

• more Crossrails to connect suburban services on each side of the capital, to reduce the space needed for terminating platforms. Such as Crossrail 2.
• longer platforms for long-distance services. These should still terminate at the edge of the central business district. This is what HS2 will do, though in an unnecessarily expensive way.

 

[zwk500]

Is the future of London a focus on out of London exchange points, perhaps points like, Old Oak Common. Barnet?, Reading, Strafford Stratford. Luton Airport Parkway, East Croydon, where passengers transiting London change services - taking pressure off London Terminals - with express services either calling or terminating at key London hubs. I know the exist but something analogist to superloop bus services, superhub, promoted by TfL? Thameslink, Elizabeth Lines offer high speed, same platform services as an alternative to the tube. Crossrail 2 perhaps being the missing link, Other rail and transport links could focus on these radial transit points to increase passenger numbers?

Do you mean Stafford or Stratford?

I could see some stations doing this however as we are seeing with OOC, in order to stop every train you need more platforms. Most of the obvious stations to function as transfer points are 1 platform per line, and there's not a lot of room to expand (e.g. Wembley Central, Wimbledon, West Hampstead Thameslink). Also, getting people right into the terminal and then dispersing them is better for most passengers as they're closer to their ultimate destination however I could see arguments for more regional trains to have a stop on the way in.

 

[Recessio]

TfL in their Metroisation guide were thinking that rail would have four "Strategic Interchanges": Clapham Junction, Lewisham, Stratford, and Willesden/Old Oak.

Page 75: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/strategic-case-for-metroisation.pdf
And also in the Mayor's Transport Strategy 2018

 

[sbf kent]

Sorry I meant Stratford, have edited. The map on page 75 pf the 2018 Major's Transport Strategy does seem to fit with this concept, but as has been said more Thameslink/Crossrail needed, but it could, if integrated with overground, perhaps take pressure of central London terminals?

 

[JonathanH]

take pressure of central London terminals

Is this a vital consideration? One advantage of having passengers use the central London Terminals is that trains have a considerable dwell time at somewhere where a lot of people want to go. Stopping trains for three minutes very soon after they leave the terminal means a longer journey for as many people as benefit from the change.

Strategic interchanges probably have some use for local journeys but perhaps not so much for longer distance ones.

Something like Tonbridge to Manchester will always be easiest going into London Bridge or Charing Cross and taking the Underground to Euston for a train from there to Manchester. Even for Tonbridge to Ipswich, it is difficult to see how a Lewisham to Stratford link would be better than using London Bridge and Liverpool Street.

 

[Magdalia]

Have a look at TfL's report: Central London Rail Termini: Analysing passengers' onward travel patterns
Almost all passengers arriving into London termini are heading to central destinations. There are very few "transiting London".

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/central-london-rail-termini-report.pdf

This report was written in 2011.

Thameslink, Elizabeth Lines offer high speed, same platform services as an alternative to the tube.

Thameslink and the Elizabeth Line have changed travel patterns significantly since then.

Something like Tonbridge to Manchester will always be easiest going into London Bridge or Charing Cross and taking the Underground to Euston for a train from there to Manchester. Even for Tonbridge to Ipswich, it is difficult to see how a Lewisham to Stratford link would be better than using London Bridge and Liverpool Street.

But Tonbridge to Cambridge or Bedford is one change at London Bridge onto Thameslink.

Since the Canal Tunnel opened in 2018 I have rarely used Kings Cross. For most Surrey, Kent and Sussex destinations I use Thameslink changing at London Bridge or East Croydon. For parts of South West London I use West Hampstead and the North London Line.

The missing link for me is a decent interchange between Thameslink and the South Western Main Line at Wimbledon.

 

[lachlan]

Old Oak Common will certainly be appreciated for changing from GWR onto HS2, removing the need for going to Paddington and having to transfer across London.

I'm not sure if this is the "future" as such though or where else an interchange should be made

 

[AlastairFraser]

Is the future of London a focus on out of London exchange points, perhaps points like, Old Oak Common. Barnet?, Reading, Stratford. Luton Airport Parkway, East Croydon, where passengers transiting London change services - taking pressure off London Terminals - with express services either calling or terminating at key London hubs. I know the exist but something analogist to superloop bus services, superhub, promoted by TfL? Thameslink, Elizabeth Lines offer high speed, same platform services as an alternative to the tube. Crossrail 2 perhaps being the missing link, Other rail and transport links could focus on these radial transit points to increase passenger numbers?

I think a limited stop orbital coach route would be worth looking at in future, for stations on intercity lines close to the M25. I don't think that it would mean every Intercity service necessarily stopping at each interchabge station , but a 2bph service with a route like Potters Bar - Waltham Cross - Shenfield - Upminster - Ebbsfleet - Sevenoaks - Redhill - Woking - Staines - Heathrow T5 - Gerrards Cross - Watford Jcn - St Albans may make sense. You may need some limited improvements to the M25 like intermittent coach lanes to make journey times reliable, but it seems a better way to make use of existing road and rail infrastructure (especially post HS2 on the WCML).

 

[HSTEd]

Converting services stopping at terminals to services that cross London has worked remarkably well when it has been tried.

Given that there are fairly few truly long-distance services on the UK railway, I'm not sure how many terminal platforms London would have in a "perfect" system.

Certainly I can't see the need for many at all at stations serving the old Southern Region.

Personally, I would love if it we could arrange a station on the scale of Tokyo's Shinagawa Shinjuku that would be called at by a huge portion of all London-serving trains, but I know that is technically impractical (at least without spending a comical sum of money).
Right now the circle that contains all London termini is quite large, if traffic could rearranged to allow that circle to shrink, that might be quite useful.

EDIT:
Probably the best chance for a London supercomplex station was lost when the British Library in a perfect station location next to King's Cross!

 

[Meerkat]

Probably the best chance for a London supercomplex station was lost when the British Library in a perfect station location next to King's Cross!

Even if you could find the space are there any clear routes under London to get mainline trains criss crossing through the middle?
I think there would be a big market for transfer journeys between Clapham Junction, Willesden/OOC, and West Hampstead.
However….
Not sure there is the capacity on the West/North London lines, especially if you want faster trips.
Clapham Junction needs a massively expensive rebuild so that all trains can stop.
Willesden needs an expensive rebuild with loads more platforms and better transfer passageways, and a rapid mass transit link to OOC (and preferably on to North Acton).
West Hampstead needs a massively expensive and unpopular demolition scheme to make space for more platforms….

someone give the magic money tree a shake…….

oh, and it’s also in London so would cause too much grumpiness from the north, no matter how needed and sensible it might be.

 

[biggerisbetter]

I’d like to see some more of these interchanges developed and improved to facilitate better connectivity outside central London, take pressure of termini and act as catalysts for regeneration.

Existing: Stratford, Clapham Junction.

New/Significantly Improved: Old Oak Common, Finsbury Park, West Hampstead, Watford Junction (post HS2), new station with platform on all lines around Surrey Canal Road.

Would obviously cost a ridiculous amount and create a huge amount of disruption so not going to happen but I think would deliver substantial benefits.

 

[MPW]

This speculative section with fairly vague thread, so....

I wonder if a new SW hub could make a big difference. The land south and east of the railway near Queenstown road is mostly industrial with just a few terraced houses.

Having a hub there would allow for a connection to all lines serving waterloo and victoria (trains from brixton direction don't go to clapham junction). The station footprint could be much larger, allowing for greater capacity than even a rebuilt clapham junction.

It would need some changes in track alignment to bring things closer together. The SLL and WLL could then have a direction connection without serving clapham junction, without losing any onward connectivity. There could be a new direct service from old oak common to waterloo, lewisham, and other parts of sound london. I am not suggesting for HS2 to serve the interchange, because it's not fast enough, but having the extra connections at OOC would still be a benefit.

A Brixton station upgrade would massively complement the scheme.

Clapham junction would stay open but likely wouldn't need a major upgrade anymore, assuming a significant proportion of passengers interchange at the new hub instead.

The new hub area would have space leftover for housing, or just restoring some of the existing industrial space (currently a goods and bus depot).

 

[zwk500]

This speculative section with fairly vague thread, so....

I wonder if a new SW hub could make a big difference. The land south and east of the railway near Queenstown road is mostly industrial with just a few terraced houses.

Having a hub there would allow for a connection to all lines serving waterloo and victoria (trains from brixton direction don't go to clapham junction). The station footprint could be much larger, allowing for greater capacity than even a rebuilt clapham junction.

It would need some changes in track alignment to bring things closer together. The SLL and WLL could then have a direction connection without serving clapham junction, without losing any onward connectivity. There could be a new direct service from old oak common to waterloo, lewisham, and other parts of sound london. I am not suggesting for HS2 to serve the interchange, because it's not fast enough, but having the extra connections at OOC would still be a benefit.

A Brixton station upgrade would massively complement the scheme.

Clapham junction would stay open but likely wouldn't need a major upgrade anymore, assuming a significant proportion of passengers interchange at the new hub instead.

The new hub area would have space leftover for housing, or just restoring some of the existing industrial space (currently a goods and bus depot).

And, pray tell, where does the quite busy Freight terminal and Traction Depot at Stewarts Lane go, as well as the Bus depot?

 

[MPW]

And, pray tell, where does the quite busy Freight terminal and Traction Depot at Stewarts Lane go, as well as the Bus depot?

Is battersea power station still available?

 

[zwk500]

Is battersea power station still available?

No

 

[Recessio]

This speculative section with fairly vague thread, so....

I wonder if a new SW hub could make a big difference. The land south and east of the railway near Queenstown road is mostly industrial with just a few terraced houses.

Having a hub there would allow for a connection to all lines serving waterloo and victoria (trains from brixton direction don't go to clapham junction). The station footprint could be much larger, allowing for greater capacity than even a rebuilt clapham junction.

It would need some changes in track alignment to bring things closer together. The SLL and WLL could then have a direction connection without serving clapham junction, without losing any onward connectivity. There could be a new direct service from old oak common to waterloo, lewisham, and other parts of sound london. I am not suggesting for HS2 to serve the interchange, because it's not fast enough, but having the extra connections at OOC would still be a benefit.

A Brixton station upgrade would massively complement the scheme.

Clapham junction would stay open but likely wouldn't need a major upgrade anymore, assuming a significant proportion of passengers interchange at the new hub instead.

The new hub area would have space leftover for housing, or just restoring some of the existing industrial space (currently a goods and bus depot).

I've often thought about this. Sadly the time to do this was the Northern line extension to Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station.

It would never happen now. The best we could do would be to get a Battersea Something station on the Southeastern lines, and join it with the existing Out of Station Interchange between Battersea Park and Queenstown Road.

 

[zwk500]

I've often thought about this. Sadly the time to do this was the Northern line extension to Nine Elms and Battersea Power Station.

It would never happen now. The best we could do would be to get a Battersea Something station on the Southeastern lines, and join it with the existing Out of Station Interchange between Battersea Park and Queenstown Road.

Considering the Victoria line connects Victoria, Vauxhall and Brixton, what does this hub actually give you?

 

[HSTEd]

How many trains per hour actually go out of Victoria and avoid Clapham Junction?
Of those, how many could potentially be rerouted via Clapham Junction and Balham (or some other route that doesn't jump out at me).

Brixton railway station is hardly the most heavily used at the end of the day, bypassing it is probably not a catastrophic loss.

If we are serious about a(n even more) Superhub at Clapham Junction, Crossrail 2 would free up a lot of space in the surface station and allow a major reorganisation of train services in South London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2024 ==

Even if you could find the space are there any clear routes under London to get mainline trains criss crossing through the middle?

If we dig deeper, yes.
Modern tunneling and station access technologies are more capable of handling deeper stations than before, so we can go under the existing lines if necessary.

I don't imagine such lines would have that many central London stations in any case.

Willesden needs an expensive rebuild with loads more platforms and better transfer passageways, and a rapid mass transit link to OOC (and preferably on to North Acton).

The capacity of two modern platforms with properly segregated approaches is enormous, in my view.
I'm not sure how many more platforms we'd need - it'd probably be easier to dig a two track metro line underneath and stick the trains in there.

Especially if we went with something like that Barcelona two stacked track thing.

 

[Recessio]

Considering the Victoria line connects Victoria, Vauxhall and Brixton, what does this hub actually give you?

Not having to go from an elevated surface railway down to the underground and then back out again? An OSI isn't ideal interchange but for some, a lot easier than taking the Victoria. Especially so if there was a Hackney style interchange. And it could take some stress off the Vic.

 

[zwk500]

How many trains per hour actually go out of Victoria and avoid Clapham Junction?

I believe since Covid only the SE service.

Of those, how many could potentially be rerouted via Clapham Junction and Balham (or some other route that doesn't jump out at me).

Essentially, none. If you run via Balham you can only return to London. There is a physical connection at Beckenham Junction but the single track there means it's not a viable diversionary route.

Brixton railway station is hardly the most heavily used at the end of the day, bypassing it is probably not a catastrophic loss.

It's busy enough for local passengers with the tube nearby, although my priority would be building Overground platforms not trying to route services away from it.

If we are serious about a(n even more) Superhub at Clapham Junction, Crossrail 2 would free up a lot of space in the surface station and allow a major reorganisation of train services in South London.

Would it? Crossrail 2 only affects the Waterloo-Basingstoke set of lines, and the Yard is still going to be needed. The Windsor and Brighton sides would probably not be able to be much improved in terms of actual platforms and tracks.

If we dig deeper, yes.
Modern tunneling and station access technologies are more capable of handling deeper stations than before, so we can go under the existing lines if necessary.

Digging deeper means taking longer to get into and out of the stations, of course.

 

[swt_passenger]

If we are serious about a(n even more) Superhub at Clapham Junction, Crossrail 2 would free up a lot of space in the surface station and allow a major reorganisation of train services…

Crossrail 2 doesn’t free anything up in the main station. As already noted, 12 platforms are used by SN, the Windsor side, and the Overground - none are impacted by Crossrail. On the four track SWML through Wimbledon, with Crossrail in place a number of services will have been be removed from the slow pair, but there will still be a proportion of existing slow trains running into Waterloo. But a number of other existing trains, about 7 or 8 per hour in each direction, will be transferred from the fasts to the slows, allowing for more longer distance services on the fasts. So the 4 existing SWR tracks through Earlsfield and Clapham Junction will still be needed. I believe the up fast loop P7 remains as well, there’s been no evidence that it would be removed.

 

[Basil Jet]

If we dig deeper, yes.
Modern tunneling and station access technologies are more capable of handling deeper stations than before, so we can go under the existing lines if necessary.

No matter how deep you go, I don't think you can just tunnel under the foundations of a skyscraper unless the skyscraper has been planned with that in mind. I've heard it said that no further tunnels in Central London are possible, apart from Crosrail2 which has long been safeguarded.

 

[Meerkat]

The capacity of two modern platforms with properly segregated approaches is enormous, in my view.
I'm not sure how many more platforms we'd need - it'd probably be easier to dig a two track metro line underneath and stick the trains in there.

I meant that Willesden would need platforms on the mainlines if it was to be a proper interchange.

 

[HSTEd]

No matter how deep you go, I don't think you can just tunnel under the foundations of a skyscraper unless the skyscraper has been planned with that in mind. I've heard it said that no further tunnels in Central London are possible, apart from Crosrail2 which has long been safeguarded.

Assuming you are deep enough to be below the foundations of a skyscraper, then you can indeed tunnel under it.
It requires extra effort to ensure you don't disturb the foundations, but the deeper you are the easier it becomes.
(The obvious example was the HS2 Manchester approach tunnel which was planned to go directly underneath a 20 story hall of residence in Fallowfield)

The claim that there can be "no more tunnels in Central London", so far as I can tell, depends on assumptions about the acceptable depth of stations.
Obviously with improving technology that depth continues to increase, and in any case we probably wouldn't need many central london stations on the lines being proposed in this thread.

 

[Meerkat]

Assuming you are deep enough to be below the foundations of a skyscraper, then you can indeed tunnel under it.
It requires extra effort to ensure you don't disturb the foundations, but the deeper you are the easier it becomes.
(The obvious example was the HS2 Manchester approach tunnel which was planned to go directly underneath a 20 story hall of residence in Fallowfield)

The claim that there can be "no more tunnels in Central London", so far as I can tell, depends on assumptions about the acceptable depth of stations.
Obviously with improving technology that depth continues to increase, and in any case we probably wouldn't need many central london stations on the lines being proposed in this thread.

A central London interchange is going to still have huge numbers of entering and exiting passengers - you are going to need miles of escalators to get them all in and out of a deep station.
It’s going to be a massive cavern too - going to need a fair size surface site for construction, and unless you build it right next to the river getting the spoil out of central London is going to be a challenge.

it also affects journey times - I was quite surprised how long it takes to get out of Crossrail stations, meaning that other routes can be quicker.

 

[Fidelis]

With the growing number of persons with reduced mobility it is time we reduced our dependency on escalators and make stations truly step free.

 

[JonathanH]

With the growing number of persons with reduced mobility it is time we reduced our dependency on escalators and make stations truly step free.

How? The Elizabeth Line stations have lifts, including some which aren't vertical, but lifts have a lower capacity for all than escalators. Is a travelator a better approach or just multiple lifts?

 

[HSTEd]

A central London interchange is going to still have huge numbers of entering and exiting passengers - you are going to need miles of escalators to get them all in and out of a deep station.

You probably wouldn't use escalators - if you are going for a truly deep station you would probably just buy those ThyssenKrupp linear motor lifts. Pairs of lift shafts, each with a continuous loop of lift vehicles.
Metro stations abroad are already trending towards simply throwing more lifts at problems as opposed to "traditional" escalator solutions.

It’s going to be a massive cavern too - going to need a fair size surface site for construction, and unless you build it right next to the river getting the spoil out of central London is going to be a challenge.

Well if we went for a Barcelona style solution of two track running tunnels with stacked platforms in the tunnel bore, the actual "cavern" volume would probably be quite small.
And of course, once a tunnel arrives on site you can put a conveyer into it to remove spoil.
It would obviously be enormously expensive, but I don't think the project is infeasible in engineering terms.

it also affects journey times - I was quite surprised how long it takes to get out of Crossrail stations, meaning that other routes can be quicker.

I'm fairly certain it would still win for any journeys that it allows to be done with one change instead of two (onto the Underground and off again).