Twickenham Station Rebuilding — Four Through Platforms?

[Dr_Paul]

Twickenham station was completely rebuilt some 70 years back with three through platforms, two for up services and and one for down services, and two London-facing bays. One of these bays was built with the possibility of conversion to a through line, although a platform-level crossing was built across the trackbed to enable easy access to and from the Post Office depot nearby.

The station is currently undergoing rebuilding, and this is an opportunity for Twickenham to have four through lines, two up and two down. The Post Office does not now use the railway here, so the crossing is not required. What is interesting is that on this plan, by marker E2, the never-used trackbed westwards from the bay is marked as 'future railway track'.

I can't ascertain whether this current rebuilding will include providing the station with four through platforms, or whether this will be left for the indefinite future. It would not be particularly difficult to include this in the rebuilding, and, as it is a heavily-used junction station, it would be a sensible thing to do.

 

[MarkyT]

I can't ascertain whether this current rebuilding will include providing the station with four through platforms, or whether this will be left for the indefinite future. It would not be particularly difficult to include this in the rebuilding, and, as it is a heavily-used junction station, it would be a sensible thing to do.

The rebuild as it stands is a station facilities and property development scheme primarily which does not change the track layout or the footprint of the station platforms at all. Doing that more sensibly awaits resignalling or track renewals activity when the bay line might be converted as you suggest, if required. From the point of view of the station scheme the former or potential trackbed you note is just retained 'passive provision' which they will endeavor not to obstruct permanently with any of their new structures and utilities. Feltham resignalling is a large resignalling project that was supposed to be underway in the area at this time, but I have no info on it's current status. It is possible that project may be providing the extra track as part of a remodelling of the layout, or it may provide passively for its future installation. Perhaps others can comment on this.

 

[Ianno87]

Doesn't add capacity for any train paths on the route unless you can do something about all the level crossings too.

 

[MarkyT]

Doesn't add capacity for any train paths on the route unless you can do something about all the level crossings too.

Agreed in terms of total capacity, but an extra platform at Twickenham could provide a longer stretch of parallel running for fasts to overtake St Margarets stoppers, giving more flexibility and resilience for real time variability. Also it could provide a cross platform facility in the up direction for fast-slow changes, to avoid the crowds of Richmond.

 

[Rational Plan]

Four platforms here will be useful for crossrail 2 services to terminate. Any long range scheme to ,say, put in a tunnel under Mortlake would need new stations at Richmond and Twickenham and you'd probably have to do the same again at Staines and Egham to get all the extra paths you need for both tunnels to pay their way.

 

[Bald Rick]

Four platforms here will be useful for crossrail 2 services to terminate.

But Crossrail 2 doesn't go there.

 

[Rational Plan]

But Crossrail 2 doesn't go there.

I thought they were still sending four to Shepperton and four to Twickenham.

 

[sjoh]

I thought they were still sending four to Shepperton and four to Twickenham.

Unfortunately the latest is that it's 8 to Hampton Wick-ish, with 4 on to Shepperton. Personally think Twickenham would be a more sensible option.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unfortunately the latest is that it's 8 to Hampton Wick-ish, with 4 on to Shepperton. Personally think Twickenham would be a more sensible option.

Why? Who in their right mind would get on a Crossrail 2 train at Twickenham to go to central London? It would be 20 mins quicker to go to Clapham and change, and a much better frequency that way too.

 

[Dr_Paul]

From the point of view of the station scheme the former or potential trackbed you note is just retained 'passive provision' which they will endeavor not to obstruct permanently with any of their new structures and utilities... It is possible that project may be providing the extra track as part of a remodelling of the layout, or it may provide passively for its future installation...

The fact that the trackbed is being maintained on a 'passive possession' basis does show some forethought: that someone is thinking that the bay could at some point be modified into a through platform. There have been many cases, mentioned in posts on this website and on other sites, where disused or spare railway land has been built on or sold off, only for this to be regretted later on.

As it is, the bay at Twickenham is not much use, as it can only be accessed by reversing from the up lines, and access from the down line requires two reversals. Direct access from the down line, thereby allowing terminating services from Waterloo on rugby match days to avoid blocking the down platform, would require the installation of a facing crossover from the down to the up fast between St Margarets and Twickenham.

 

[sjoh]

Why? Who in their right mind would get on a Crossrail 2 train at Twickenham to go to central London? It would be 20 mins quicker to go to Clapham and change, and a much better frequency that way too.

Nobody, but I should think you'd know that.
It makes sense to keep interference between two TOCs at an absolute minimum. The route from Hampton Wick to Twickenham will otherwise be run by SWR (or its successor). This adds unnecessary potential for conflict. I know that TOCs are perfectly capable of running services together, but over a stretch this small, I really don't feel it makes sense.
A purely CR2 run route along that line allows for simple clock face timetables - something, that whilst not impossible to do between two TOC's, I've never come across before.

Additionally, if the plan is for CR2 to run up to 8tph up the loop as far as Hampton Wick, how exactly do you squeeze SWR loop services around that as well? Or, if you terminate SWR 'loop' services from the north at Hampton Wick, and 4 of the CR2 services from the south at HW... well, what sort of offering is that? Better for CR2 to run to Twickenham and the loop paths be used for something more useful.

 

[MarkyT]

I believe it's possible to extend the bay at Kingston to 10 car length. If so the north part of the SWR loop can continue from the Windsor lines and terminate there, maintaining the direct link between Kingston and Richmond, Putney, and of course Waterloo.

 

[MarkyT]

As it is, the bay at Twickenham is not much use, as it can only be accessed by reversing from the up lines, and access from the down line requires two reversals. Direct access from the down line, thereby allowing terminating services from Waterloo on rugby match days to avoid blocking the down platform, would require the installation of a facing crossover from the down to the up fast between St Margarets and Twickenham.

I think it's less of a handicap than you assume as arrivals for matches take place on normal service trains across a larger timescale than departures after a match when the fans all arrive at the station en masse and when extra relief trains are most useful. Those trains will have arrived from Strawberry Hill sidings empty. I think a through platform would be very useful though as it would cut down on the shunting required.

 

[Bald Rick]

Nobody, but I should think you'd know that.
It makes sense to keep interference between two TOCs at an absolute minimum. The route from Hampton Wick to Twickenham will otherwise be run by SWR (or its successor). This adds unnecessary potential for conflict. I know that TOCs are perfectly capable of running services together, but over a stretch this small, I really don't feel it makes sense.
A purely CR2 run route along that line allows for simple clock face timetables - something, that whilst not impossible to do between two TOC's, I've never come across before.

Additionally, if the plan is for CR2 to run up to 8tph up the loop as far as Hampton Wick, how exactly do you squeeze SWR loop services around that as well? Or, if you terminate SWR 'loop' services from the north at Hampton Wick, and 4 of the CR2 services from the south at HW... well, what sort of offering is that? Better for CR2 to run to Twickenham and the loop paths be used for something more useful.

There are some high flows around the loop, such as Richmond to Kingston. Breaking the loop would not be at all popular, and actually doesn't solve anything:

1) you can't run more services on the Richmond corridor as you still have to provide the Waterloo service that the loop provides.

2) it doesn't reduce any conflicts; it doesn't matter whether the trains from Twickenham are Crossrail 2 or loop trains, the conflict remains at Shacklegate Junction.

3) the peak only SWR trains from Shepperton via Twickenham still need to run.

4) Strawberry Hill would lose its shortest direct route to London.

All so that two operators don't run in the same line?

Besides, who knows, perhaps whoever runs Crossrail 2 will also run the SW suburban services as well?

 

[NSEFAN]

I would've thought that biggest barrier to extending XR to Twickenham from Hampton Wick would be the level crossing barrier down times at Strawberry Hill. Given the presence of two former through platforms, it would be relatively easy to re-work the track layout to reduce conflicting moves between XR terminators and through trains towards Staines.

 

[sjoh]

There are some high flows around the loop, such as Richmond to Kingston. Breaking the loop would not be at all popular, and actually doesn't solve anything:

1) you can't run more services on the Richmond corridor as you still have to provide the Waterloo service that the loop provides.

2) it doesn't reduce any conflicts; it doesn't matter whether the trains from Twickenham are Crossrail 2 or loop trains, the conflict remains at Shacklegate Junction.

3) the peak only SWR trains from Shepperton via Twickenham still need to run.

4) Strawberry Hill would lose its shortest direct route to London.

All so that two operators don't run in the same line?

Besides, who knows, perhaps whoever runs Crossrail 2 will also run the SW suburban services as well?

I'm not sure this really adds up:

1) I don't really see what you mean here. I'm not proposing running additional services on the Richmond corridor. I'm proposing send the service that's provided by the loop trains to/from somewhere else. It would still go to Waterloo.

2) There's only conflict at Shacklewell Jn if timetables aren't optimized. It's not rocket science to get 8tph each way over a flat junction. It becomes much easier if it's the one TOC timetabling it proposing the timetables.

3) I'm not convinced they do. With 4tph CR2 from Shepperton rather than the current 2, capacity is already doubled. Even so, there's not really any reason why they couldn't run anyway - unless you're saying that Twickenham-Strawberry Hill Jn can't deal with 6tph (I don't know - genuine q).

4) Made up for with more frequent trains to Twickenham.

In any case, I very much doubt that CR2 will not involve some form of infrastructure capacity improvement work on existing lines.

 

[pacenotes]

A few years ago they thought about running the overground Peckham to Wimbledon to Twickenham and then Twickenham to Hounslow and go up to the Action line. That was when Borris was mayor and I don't think it will happen anytime soon. But all you would need around Twickenham is a couple of platforms and a fly over to get onto Hounslow line.

 

[sjoh]

A few years ago they thought about running the overground Peckham to Wimbledon to Twickenham and then Twickenham to Hounslow and go up to the Action line. That was when Borris was mayor and I don't think it will happen anytime soon. But all you would need around Twickenham is a couple of platforms and a fly over to get onto Hounslow line.

I think that was part of the London 2050 transport vision - I'm fairly sure it was never made as a concrete proposal (if you see what i mean...), but more of a 'here's a vague idea'. There's a map kicking about somewhere.

 

[Dr_Paul]

A few years ago they thought about running the overground Peckham to Wimbledon to Twickenham... That was when Boris was mayor...

Getting an up service across from the up slow Southwestern line to the up Sutton line would be fun, especially at peak hours, with merely the up and down fast and the down slow Southwestern lines to cross. Another of Mr Johnson's many well-thought-out and properly-researched plans.

 

[Rational Plan]

I think that was part of the London 2050 transport vision - I'm fairly sure it was never made as a concrete proposal (if you see what i mean...), but more of a 'here's a vague idea'. There's a map kicking about somewhere.

As you say. A lot of the propoosed routes required a lot of new flying junctions and some sections of new line built.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not sure this really adds up:

1) I don't really see what you mean here. I'm not proposing running additional services on the Richmond corridor. I'm proposing send the service that's provided by the loop trains to/from somewhere else. It would still go to Waterloo.

2) There's only conflict at Shacklewell Jn if timetables aren't optimized. It's not rocket science to get 8tph each way over a flat junction. It becomes much easier if it's the one TOC timetabling it proposing the timetables.

3) I'm not convinced they do. With 4tph CR2 from Shepperton rather than the current 2, capacity is already doubled. Even so, there's not really any reason why they couldn't run anyway - unless you're saying that Twickenham-Strawberry Hill Jn can't deal with 6tph (I don't know - genuine q).

4) Made up for with more frequent trains to Twickenham.

In any case, I very much doubt that CR2 will not involve some form of infrastructure capacity improvement work on existing lines.

CR2 involves lots of infrastructure work in existing lines, but not at Twickemham, as it's not going there!

The conflicts at Shacklegate - it really doesn't matter whether it is one operator or two; it makes no difference to the ease of timetabling (in this case). And as I said, by then it may well be only one operator anyway.

Shepperton needs to retain the peak trains via Richmond a) because without them peak capacity is not increased (it being 4tph for the high peak today - and there is standing from as far out as Hampton), and b) there is quite a flow from the Shepperton line to Twickenham, Richmond and Putney, particularly in the peaks. If the Shepperton line was purely CR2, and CR2 also took over the loop paths to Twickenham, such a journey would require 2 changes.

That's an awful of lot of downside for operational convenience that actually doesn't exist.

 

[sjoh]

CR2 involves lots of infrastructure work in existing lines, but not at Twickemham, as it's not going there!

Well, yes, I know that. I think we all know that.

The conflicts at Shacklegate - it really doesn't matter whether it is one operator or two; it makes no difference to the ease of timetabling (in this case). And as I said, by then it may well be only one operator anyway.

Fair enough.

Shepperton needs to retain the peak trains via Richmond a) because without them peak capacity is not increased (it being 4tph for the high peak today - and there is standing from as far out as Hampton), and b) there is quite a flow from the Shepperton line to Twickenham, Richmond and Putney, particularly in the peaks. If the Shepperton line was purely CR2, and CR2 also took over the loop paths to Twickenham, such a journey would require 2 changes.

Is there not capacity along the stretch from Twickenham to Fulwell for 6tph in the peak? Given that the Shepperton line presumably will be upgraded anyway.