Mildmay Line Extension that costs £0!

[park hill]

I propose to extend the NLL/Mildmay Line from its current terminus of Richmond to Twickenham and perhaps beyond.

Taking a quick peek at RTT, I noticed there are roughly 10tph per direction along the Richmond-St Margaret's stretch. Considering the SWML relief lines see 14tph at peak, it is hopefully not a leap of imagination that the capacity of this section could be increased. Could 2 Overground trains per hour continue their journey to Twickenham and utilise the single north-facing bay platform at the station?

Getting as far as Twickenham puts Shepperton on the cards. It's currently served by 2tph and could easily accommodate another platform - this would also give the Shepperton branch a useful connection with the Windsor/Reading mainline side of the SWR network.

Kingston would be a great target as well, but the turnback is a sticking point.

TFL is putting forward the case to create the West London Orbital line, which (besides the standard benefits) would connect much of North and West London to Old Oak Common. My proposal would open up more direct connections between OOC and SW London while providing more services to the suburban area.

The title is a bit clickbaity since you'd have to make some signalling improvements and add a junction east of Richmond station. However, rolling stock aside, it would cost pennies compared to the West London Orbital.

 

[Helvellyn]

Isn't the issue though that Richmond only has two through platforms, so any service being extended would need to cross the Up Line, with all the performance risks that brings for SWR? In SWR times of disruption this Mildmay Line service would also be a prime candidate just to be terminated at Richmond.

 

[PeterC]

I don't know the station but looking at the satellite view in Google Maps there doesn't seem to by any link between the TfL and SWR lines. I don't think that the minor benefits justify the expense disruption and longer term performance risks.

 

[Magdalia]

I propose to extend the NLL/Mildmay Line from its current terminus of Richmond to Twickenham and perhaps beyond.

I don't know the station but looking at the satellite view in Google Maps there doesn't seem to by any link between the TfL and SWR lines.

There is no link, and it would not be zero cost to install that link.

Taking a quick peek at RTT, I noticed there are roughly 10tph per direction along the Richmond-St Margaret's stretch. Considering the SWML relief lines see 14tph at peak, it is hopefully not a leap of imagination that the capacity of this section could be increased.

Isn't the issue though that Richmond only has two through platforms, so any service being extended would need to cross the Up Line, with all the performance risks that brings for SWR?

The performance risks are big, especially as they would be compounded with the existing performance risk at North Sheen level crossing. It isn't possible to create extra paths between Richmond and Twickenham without bunching up the paths between Richmond and Barnes, and that would screw up the operation of the North Sheen level crossing.

 

[park hill]

Isn't the issue though that Richmond only has two through platforms, so any service being extended would need to cross the Up Line, with all the performance risks that brings for SWR?

The performance risks are big, especially as they would be compounded with the existing performance risk at North Sheen level crossing.

Get extra paths by sending some fasts via Hounslow then.

I don't know the station but looking at the satellite view in Google Maps there doesn't seem to by any link between the TfL and SWR lines. I don't think that the minor benefits justify the expense disruption and longer term performance risks.

There is no link, and it would not be zero cost to install that link.

- This extension would double the services to 8 underserved suburban stations, increase provision to a local hub station (Twickenham) and improve connectivity to OOC.
- Compare this with the West London Orbital's improvement of services for only 4 stations, with a similar amount of work required.

Surely that puts the BCR of this plan in a similar realm to the WLO?

 

[Magdalia]

Get extra paths by sending some fasts via Hounslow then.

Which fasts are those?

I can't see anything non-stop through either Richmond or Twickenham.

 

[park hill]

Which fasts are those?

I can't see anything non-stop through either Richmond or Twickenham.

I mean the Windsor and Reading services.

 

[JonathanH]

I mean the Windsor and Reading services.

They have to stop at Richmond and Twickenham for connections though, so they can't be diverted via Hounslow and still maintain those calls. Long gone are the days when some Reading services were fast to Ascot. The timetabling has long since favoured local connectivity over faster services for South East Berkshire.

 

[park hill]

They have to stop at Richmond and Twickenham for connections though, so they can't be diverted via Hounslow and still maintain those calls.

WLO will connect Hounslow to the Overground, Gunnesbury - Kew Bridge (10 mins) already exists for the District line. There are no other connections at Twickenham/Richmond.

The Weybridge service goes via Hounslow already with no issue.

If you still refuse this, send 1tph each for Windsor & Reading each way, so you keep an option for getting to Twickenham/Richmond for those that could possibly need it, but still free up 2 paths.

 

[NorthLondoner]

Wasn't there a proposal to increase both the Windsor and Reading services pre-2020? If that's so, I'm not sure how paths will be found. I've always wondered if using the path for the Shepperton peaks can be used instead for paving way for extending the Overground to either Shepperton or Kingston. Ideally 4tph.

 

[JonathanH]

I've always wondered if using the path for the Shepperton peaks can be used instead for paving way for extending the Overground to either Shepperton or Kingston. Ideally 4tph.

What would you say is the virtue of getting the Overground out to Kingston or Shepperton via Teddington? Is the supposition that passengers would immediately fill the trains?

 

[Magdalia]

If you still refuse this, send 1tph each for Windsor & Reading each way, so you keep an option for getting to Twickenham/Richmond for those that could possibly need it, but still free up 2 paths.

Richmond and Twickenham are by far the most important origins/destinations on either route, with 8.8m and 4.5m entrances/exits in 2023/24. They are too important to divert Reading and Windsor trains onto the Hounslow loop. In comparison, all 6 stations Chiswick-Hounslow added together only make about 5m entrances/exits in 2023/24.

 

[park hill]

Richmond and Twickenham are by far the most important origins/destinations on either route, with 8.8m and 4.5m entrances/exits in 2023/24. They are too important to divert Reading and Windsor trains onto the Hounslow loop. In comparison, all 6 stations Chiswick-Hounslow added together only make about 5m entrances/exits in 2023/24.

Following the logic of prioritising busier stations, the WLO should go to Twickenham/Kingston over Hounslow.

- Twickenham and St Margarets alone (5.4mil total entries & exits) have far more demand than Hounslow, Isleworth, Syon Lane and Brentford combined (3.4mil).
- Add on Teddington to Kingston (6.5mil), or the rest of the Shepperton branch (2.8mil) and it's a landslide.

I want to be clear: I would ideally like to see extensions to both Hounslow and Twickenham (& beyond). But I find it bizarre that Hounslow is getting there, while Twickenham isn't even mentioned.

Also, I have just realised Kingston has a Richmond-facing bay. How is the Mildmay line not going here?!

 

[JonathanH]

Also, I have just realised Kingston has a Richmond-facing bay. How is the Mildmay line not going here?!

It was once, twenty years ago, talked about as a terminating point for Crossrail. The local passengers objected on the basis that they didn't want to lose their services to Waterloo.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...or/find-an-answer/crossrail-supplementary-4-6

The proposal to take the Crossrail line down through Richmond and Kingston was made by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to help relieve overcrowding on the overland trains. In order to gain a compromise and a common position I accepted that. If you are going to throw all that into doubt I will simply say to Richard Bowker (Chairman of the SRA) that there is public opposition. We are not going to get into a fight with people in Richmond if they do not want Crossrail.

I do find it absolutely bizarre: we are offering to create a high?speed rail link with double the capacity and running right the way down exactly the same lines through exactly the same stations, and you mange to go running around like some demented hamster all over Southwest London spreading fear and gloom and doom that they are going to be cut off without any trains.

By the time Kingston loop trains reach Richmond heading out of London, there is plenty of capacity on them for passengers changing from the District and Mildmay lines.

 

[Helvellyn]

So to extend Mildmay Line services from Richmond to Twickenham we have the OP suggesting various things such as diverting "fast" services via Hounslow (so either Windsors or Readings), or diverting some (thus breaking the clockface timetable).

Where do those Twickenham and Richmond passengers go wanting to get to Clapham, Vauxhall or Waterloo (all major interchange points) with a reduced service.

I'm sure on a Twickenham event day all those passengers coming in via Reading and Clapham/Waterloo would appreciate much fewer services to get to/from the stadium just so people in West London have a direct service to Twickenham.

 

[Mr. SW]

Hello.

One-time Hounslovian here and past regular user of Feltham - Clapham Junction services.

The short answer to the question posed by the OP is 'No'.

The lines are already busy and you can't easily cram anymore services on them. Any track improvements at Richmond would be pointlessly (haha) disruptive. It simply wouldn't be worth it.

The previous connection between the NLL/Dist and the Windsor Line at Richmond faced the wrong way and was for maintenance purposes only. It was removed a decade ago or thereabouts. There was a direct connection as per Wimbledon but that went a very long time ago (70s, I think)

The West London Orbital scheme will cover a lot of the capacity enhancements anyway.

I want to be clear: I would ideally like to see extensions to both Hounslow and Twickenham (& beyond). But I find it bizarre that Hounslow is getting there, while Twickenham isn't even mentioned.

Not bizarre at all.
Hounslow is the first place that provides a proper reversing facility. There were originally two storage sidings either side of the line beyond the Whitton Road bridge and two crossovers exist today: one beyond Whitton Road and one between the Public Footpath footbridge and Inwood Road. It would be relatively easy to reinstate a siding or go further and have a Tube-style central reversing road.
Secondly, the next points of reversal would be at Feltham or Twickenham and operationally complex on already busy lines.
But I digress.

Also remember the area is covered by a pretty dense bus network.

 

[Basil Jet]

It was once, twenty years ago, talked about as a terminating point for Crossrail. The local passengers objected on the basis that they didn't want to lose their services to Waterloo.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...or/find-an-answer/crossrail-supplementary-4-6

By the time Kingston loop trains reach Richmond heading out of London, there is plenty of capacity on them for passengers changing from the District and Mildmay lines.

If I remember correctly, Richmond people were told that they would lose the District Line when they got Crossrail 1, and this was what they objected to.

 

[park hill]

It was once, twenty years ago, talked about as a terminating point for Crossrail. The local passengers objected on the basis that they didn't want to lose their services to Waterloo.

If I remember correctly, Richmond people were told that they would lose the District Line when they got Crossrail 1, and this was what they objected to.

This is very interesting. It seems from other answers that there is 0 extra feasible capacity between Richmond and Twickenham, so no incremental improvement is possible. At what point would it be economical to do what early Crossrail considered - 4-track the railway between Richmond and Twickenham?

I read in a report that the biggest challenge would be getting another two tracks underneath Kew Road.

Would it be done if there was a strong need for extra Reading and Windsor services? District Line extension?

Dreaming up an example timetable, per hour you could have:
- 2 Mildmay line services to Kingston
- 2 Mildmay line services to Shepperton
- 2 District line services to Strawberry Hill
- Additional 2 services to Reading (total 4)
- Additional 2 services Windsor (total 4)

 

[Class15]

The cost is not ‘£0’.

Unless you want to reverse in Richmond P3, shunt out onto the main lines, block them, then head out towards Twickenham, you have to reinstate the connection between the North London/Mildmay line and the SWR lines at the east end. God knows why this was removed in the first place…

 

[JonathanH]

God knows why this was removed in the first place…

There is no real issue with Richmond being a dead end given the connections available to the route via Brentford. Consequently with it not really having any use, it just becomes a maintenance liability.