Antje
侵略! S系, でゲソ! The Tube comes from the bottom of London!
Posts: 605
|
Post by Antje on Sept 9, 2011 15:34:39 GMT
I'll try and keep this on topic and say that I would support a Bakerloo/DC hybrid between Watford/J and Harrow/W, but the tracks between where the proposed Croxley link diverges and the terminus will have to be quadrupled to avoid congestion, and that will mean CPOs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2011 17:03:14 GMT
I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about the Bakerloo going back to Watford. Firstly because the service from Queen's Park - Elephant & Castle would suffer. Secondly because, assuming it ever gets done, the Met line extension will take care of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 9, 2011 17:55:30 GMT
1) Service on the DC Lines to WJ Overground; 4tph or Bakerloo? 2) St Albans Branch; Heavy rail or LRT? 3) Croxley Link 15 years gathering dust but a very useful scheme, but costs inflated 10-fold since early 90s (yes it was quoted at £15m 1994ish!) If and when? 4) What role should LM services have for WJ passengers and intermediate stops? 5) Should any other main line stops be considered for LM or Southern services and what is the impact on slow lines capacity? 6) Is there a case for restoring slow line platforms at Willesden Jct? What is the impact on line capacity -v- interchange hub benefits. Discuss! 1)6tph LO  2)Heavy rail. (still holding out for that underpass to link it to the Croxley link!) 3)Yes. 50 years ago, when originally suggested when Ricky Church St. was shut. 4, 5 & 6)Difficult. Pre-HS2, then Willesden Junction would be the only place I'd add, but you'd have to continue serving at the very least H&W. Given a more frequent LO timetable, it'd be quicker to use LO between Bushey and H&W than serving Bushey directly (it's about 12 minutes by LO IIRC, and a ~30-min LM frequency...) It already is in a few situations (I used to change off the 18:54 ex Euston at 18:06 for the 18:08 LO to Bushey for 18:19, when the 18:04 ex Euston got to Bushey for 18:22 - the exact same time as the bus  ) but the 20-min LO frequency stops this working most the time given the 30-min LM frequency (and the atrocious timekeeping LO used to have). Likewise for Wembley Central heading south except on match days. Willesden is far enough away from H&W for this not to be the case. Also - Southern ending their Wembley Central calls. They only exist to provide a branch interchange between the WLL and WCML, and a reopened Willesden Junction would fill this role much better, and would have LM services calling at it as well. Post-HS2, then you'll have a lot more scope for stopping on the slow lines as the fast lines will be able to take everything from north of Tring. The Tring stoppers could easily go to 4tph and potentially stop everywhere including Willesden & Hatch End, but they wouldn't need to if the LO service had been improved already. So if LO stays as-is at 3tph, then reopen those two stations on the slow lines and add regular stops at Wembley Central and Queens Park. If LO has been improved, then continue to stop at just H&W and a reopened Willesden Junction (and Wembley Central on match days), and route more of the fast services down the slow lines as is currently the case, giving more slack on the fast lines for better outer suburban services. I wonder how many contributors actually live near to the line or are regular users? If so do you go to the quarterly Watford RUG meetings? If a regular Overground user, could you make a useful contribution to LOROL's passenger stakeholder group. (If interested in the latter send me a personal message in confidence and I'll pass your name on.) I used to be...but job changes mean I haven't been a regular user for a few months. Still live in Bushey though and use the line socially. The Watford RUG meeting on 5/9 was useful as changes are in hand. LM services are regularly stopping at Bushey and one OOU main line platform, down line, is to be equipped for contingency use to set down from late trains. I was oh so very surprised by this when it was announced back in March. That platform's been OOU longer than Hatch End's...but I can't seem to find an actual date of closure. I suspect pre WW2 though. However despite Southern trains needing 8-car capacity at Wembley Central, LM are not planning any regular services to stop. Can't say I blame them. As I say above, I suspect the only reason Southern stop here is to interchange between LO and the WLL, which they wouldn't need to do with platforms at Willesden Junction. LO is not planning to increase Watford DC services above 3tph in the current concession. Signalling capacity, now controlled from a panel at Wembley, instead of it's own panel at Willesden Jct, is the problem. BR / Railtrack policy provided the 'minimum necessary' signalling; means limited scope for expansion. Such a shame, and same old story. I think it'd be well worthwhile to find the funding though...when does the current concession end? So in the next few years TfL wants the NLL/WLL/DC services expanded to 5-cars, replicating a 376 into a 378. NR's LSE RUS II says 6 cars, but platform extensions to 130m start getting expensive, whereas many platforms were 105m for 2 x 501s or 7-car Bakerloo stock. Minimal works on DC line, some on NLL, correcting Railtrack's frugal station rebuilds in 1996 for only 3 car units! Such forward planning was truly commendable! I always maintained the ELL should have been built for 8-car trains, but further reading up on the history (and thus limitations) of the LO network has led me to believe that 6-car 378 is a reasonable maximum, and 5 would be more than satisfactory, coming in at somewhere between a S7 and a S8 (a S7.5, if you will ). As for trackworks, starting with Camden Road 4-tracking, this is still scheduled for 2013-14, with money nominally allocated for this work primarily for freight. Enlarging Camden Rd W Junction would be expensive, as it needs some additional bridge / viaduct works over Kentish Town Rd and probably Castlehaven Rd. Fortunately property demolition is minimal, 2 houses at the most, one is a commercial premises. Yup. I made it about 25-30m of widened viaduct on the northern side. But, this is all in the melting pot with HS2 links, etc., etc. I think we will get the Camden East works and the bridges done, freight and LO growth will see to that, but whether we will get Stratford - Camden - Primrose Hill - Queens Park - stations to Watford is unlikely, according to LOROL and TfL people, even though benefits are clear. It's a case of Watford - Euston versus Watford - NLL. The final track layout west of H&I to CR makes any ELL extension west very unlikely. More's the pity. Surely Watford-Euston is irrelevant as I've not heard a single proponent of retaining LO into Euston after the HS2 rebuild. It's Bakerloo taking over Queens Park to Watford and abandoning (passenger services) Queens Park to South Hampstead, or running a LO service via Primrose Hill. There are no other options! The H&I track layout is also largely irrelevant...a segregated rebuild could just be 4 plain lines from Dalston Western Junction to Camden Western Junction (making both of those no longer junctions!). In reality of course you'd retain ladders at those locations for stock transfers and unusual movements, and maybe a crossover or two at H&I and Camden Road for turning short. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 9, 2011 18:39:06 GMT
I'll try and keep this on topic and say that I would support a Bakerloo/DC hybrid between Watford/J and Harrow/W, but the tracks between where the proposed Croxley link diverges and the terminus will have to be quadrupled to avoid congestion, and that will mean CPOs. I think that would be ideal, but unlikely. I've said before ages ago that Watford High Street has room to the north to be widened for another island platform, and the road bridge that takes the High Street over the line needs rebuilding as it's in a poor state and has a weight restriction on it. A rebuild of Watford High Street would also enable a new passageway/ticket hall under the ring road/pyramid with the pyramid converted to a new landmark station entrance actually near to (adjacent actually!) the bus stops. I believe this would dramatically increase use of the station if through mind share if nothing at all...as stuck out where it is is just a PITA to get to, as you have to cross both the busy ring road and the high street on the surface to get to it. Beyond the bridge, there would have been room to widen the cutting for another pair of tracks, but the large derelict building there has been demolished and new flats are in the process of being built. Beyond there, there is some scope for widening, but only minimally the closer you get to Watford Junction. I propose the new lines diving down here to solve this, and running under the WCML and rising back up by the telephone exchange to run on the eastern side of the WCML up to Watford Junction, then up to St. Albans. The existing 4 (5) platforms would then be used for terminating LO/Met/Chiltern/Bakerloo trains, and LO/Chiltern could run on to St. Albans. What would work out best would be if a grade separated junction west of WHS could be managed to give Met Down - LO Down - LO Up - Met Up as this would both give directional islands as well as enable a single double track dive under to serve both routes whilst retaining access to the terminal platforms: ![]() random.jamie-thompson.co.uk/Watford Junction Diveunder[/img] |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 9, 2011 20:05:12 GMT
1) Service on the DC Lines to WJ Overground; 4tph or Bakerloo? 2) St Albans Branch; Heavy rail or LRT? 3) Croxley Link 15 years gathering dust but a very useful scheme, but costs inflated 10-fold since early 90s (yes it was quoted at £15m 1994ish!) If and when? 4) What role should LM services have for WJ passengers and intermediate stops? 5) Should any other main line stops be considered for LM or Southern services and what is the impact on slow lines capacity? 6) Is there a case for restoring slow line platforms at Willesden Jct? What is the impact on line capacity -v- interchange hub benefits. Discuss! 1)6tph LO 2)Heavy rail. (still holding out for that underpass to link it to the Croxley link!) 3)Yes. 50 years ago, when originally suggested when Ricky Church St. was shut. 4, 5 & 6)Difficult. Pre-HS2, then Willesden Junction would be the only place I'd add, but you'd have to continue serving at the very least H&W. Given a more frequent LO timetable, it'd be quicker to use LO between Bushey and H&W than serving Bushey directly (it's about 12 minutes by LO IIRC, and a ~30-min LM frequency...) It already is in a few situations (I used to change off the 18:54 ex Euston at 18:06 for the 18:08 LO to Bushey for 18:19, when the 18:04 ex Euston got to Bushey for 18:22 - the exact same time as the bus ) but the 20-min LO frequency stops this working most the time given the 30-min LM frequency (and the atrocious timekeeping LO used to have). Likewise for Wembley Central heading south except on match days. Willesden is far enough away from H&W for this not to be the case. Also - Southern ending their Wembley Central calls. They only exist to provide a branch interchange between the WLL and WCML, and a reopened Willesden Junction would fill this role much better, and would have LM services calling at it as well. Post-HS2, then you'll have a lot more scope for stopping on the slow lines as the fast lines will be able to take everything from north of Tring. The Tring stoppers could easily go to 4tph and potentially stop everywhere including Willesden & Hatch End, but they wouldn't need to if the LO service had been improved already. So if LO stays as-is at 3tph, then reopen those two stations on the slow lines and add regular stops at Wembley Central and Queens Park. If LO has been improved, then continue to stop at just H&W and a reopened Willesden Junction (and Wembley Central on match days), and route more of the fast services down the slow lines as is currently the case, giving more slack on the fast lines for better outer suburban services. Can't say I blame them. As I say above, I suspect the only reason Southern stop here is to interchange between LO and the WLL, which they wouldn't need to do with platforms at Willesden Junction. I don't think that the Wembley stops are there for connections between the WLL and WCML / DC Lines, after all Watford Junction gives better connections to/from the WCML and the DC lines already have a connection at Willesden. The stops are there for the people in Wembley to have faster access to the West London Line. The original service (now run by Southern) had some financial input from the GLA for the Wembley stop to be added. But the concession doesn't control the service levels, TfL does and it is up to TfL to specify how many trains per hour they wish to run and agree the costs with LO. Of course there are options, it may still be possible to run the LO into Euston, it depends on the level on service on the remaining WCML. The question is not whether it is worth doing (the number of passengers between Euston and Queens Park / Willesden Junction show that there is demand), but whether it is cost effective to retain the capacity at Euston. If Crossrail takes over some WCML services then there may be capacity for LO at Euston after all. |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 9, 2011 20:26:17 GMT
Since my first post, this has become a very convoluted discussion! 1) Service on the DC Lines to WJ Overground; 4tph or Bakerloo? 2) St Albans Branch; Heavy rail or LRT? 3) Croxley Link 15 years gathering dust but a very useful scheme, but costs inflated 10-fold since early 90s (yes it was quoted at £15m 1994ish!) If and when? 4) What role should LM services have for WJ passengers and intermediate stops? 5) Should any other main line stops be considered for LM or Southern services and what is the impact on slow lines capacity? 6) Is there a case for restoring slow line platforms at Willesden Jct? What is the impact on line capacity -v- interchange hub benefits. Discuss! 1) Some Bakerloo services should be swapped with LO services to enhance the service north of Harrow to 4-6tph. 2) Light Rail, for a cheaper solution to enhance frequency. 3) ASAP 4) LM services should keep their current pattern 5) Southern need the second tph to run, no other extra stops on the mainlines as LO provides reasonable alternatives for most journeys. 6) Possibly, but some of the advantages would come from a second Southern service and maybe integration of extra DC line services with NLL trains. A possibility that occurred to me in the past was a Barking - Gospel Oak - Willesden Junction - Harrow/Watford Junction service (once the DC lines are resignalled and GOBLIN electrified). This would give some of the advantages of mainline platforms without eating into mainline capacity. Yes, I'm a regular user, but mainly of the LM services, with LO / Bakerloo occasionally (especially if heading to Paddington). Of course, the demands at Harrow are different to Watford with a very large peak flow to/from Euston, but a lower proportion of inbound peak traffic than Watford. The platform being reinstated is the one surviving OOU at the station, also planned to be used on Sundays when the slow lines are shut. There would be no peak capacity for LM trains to call at Wembley, the same reason that there are no morning trains, at the height of the peak, to the WLL. If there are no peaks calls, then there is probably little point in calling off-peak except when there is an event at Wembley (and it's not just matches, but there are often extra calls for concerts). If needed, then they might get away with just lengthening the 'easy' and busy platforms to 6 car length and using SDO at the difficult or quiet stations lengthened to 5-ish cars. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 9, 2011 23:09:05 GMT
The Southern trains do not reach the slow lines until just before Wembley - so if their trains are to call at Willesden as well as LM's, both would need their own platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on Sept 9, 2011 23:43:31 GMT
The Southern trains don't go close enough to Willesden to stop there - here's an aerial view of the area... g.co/maps/v54kcNote WIJ on the top far right, and the line that the Southern trains use comes from the bottom left and from going on the line AFAIK it is the track that goes under the other opposite Harley Road, then becomes 2 track near Harlesden station, then if you scroll left it dives under the WCML to come out in the middle... not close enough to Willesden to stop there at all! |
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on Sept 10, 2011 0:16:41 GMT
The Southern trains don't go close enough to Willesden to stop there - here's an aerial view of the area... g.co/maps/v54kcNote WIJ on the top far right, and the line that the Southern trains use comes from the bottom left and from going on the line AFAIK it is the track that goes under the other opposite Harley Road, then becomes 2 track near Harlesden station, then if you scroll left it dives under the WCML to come out in the middle... not close enough to Willesden to stop there at all! No, You are describing the Acton Branch, which is a non-electrified single track connecting the Acton - Cricklewood lines with the Willesden Relief lines. The Southern services come onto that map on the bottom right (parallel with Scrubs lane before turning left to parallel the West Coast mainline alongside Willesden depot. At this point, the West London Lines become the Willesden Relief lines and pass under the North London line at the junction with the South West Sidings (which parallel Old Oak Lane before linking with the Richmond Branch from Willesden Junction High Level). Platforms could be built on the Relief lines, one the otherside of the bridge over the WCML from the 'C' on the map. But there would need to be a long footbridge to connect them to the rest of the station and some freight lines would be lost to make room for platforms. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Sept 10, 2011 2:09:02 GMT
Indeed. There used to be platforms here on the relief lines as well as the fast and slow lines. IIRC they were bays as there were no passenger through services from the WLL to the WCML...but don't quote me on that.
On a tangent, there also used to be a 3rd platform on the NLL section of the station. How handy that would be given the service levels planned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2011 6:54:23 GMT
The Willesden Relief Lines were previously Goods Lines and were not provided with platforms whilst the station was still there. The two platforms on the south side of the station were on seperate lines, platform 1 the most southerly with platform 2/3 being double sided then platform 4 and 5 servig the fast lines and platforms 6 and 7 the slow lines.
|
|
SE13
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2013
Glorious Gooner
Posts: 9,737
|
Post by SE13 on Sept 10, 2011 9:39:50 GMT
I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about the Bakerloo going back to Watford. Firstly because the service from Queen's Park - Elephant & Castle would suffer. Secondly because, assuming it ever gets done, the Met line extension will take care of it. Possibly, however, there are still some 67ts kicking around, with a tweak here and there, they could supply the extra stock needed, and Elephant - QP wouldn't suffer. Can't see it happening though. |
|
) but the 20-min LO frequency stops this working most the time given the 30-min LM frequency (and the atrocious timekeeping LO used to have). Likewise for Wembley Central heading south except on match days. Willesden is far enough away from H&W for this not to be the case. Also - Southern ending their Wembley Central calls. They only exist to provide a branch interchange between the WLL and WCML, and a reopened Willesden Junction would fill this role much better, and would have LM services calling at it as well.
