Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 22:46:13 GMT
It seems like the idea of a large interchange station at West Hampstead has fizzled out. What is the chance that the West Hampstead Interchange will ever be built?
Also, in the original idea for the WHI, the Chiltern Line, Jubilee Line, Thameslink Line, and North London Line would definitely serve it, but the Metropolitan Line was only a 'maybe'. It seems a bit unusual that a line which is served by trains that travel reasonably long distances (Chiltern Line) would serve a station, whilst a London Underground line would not. Has anyone got an explanation for this?
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on Jun 30, 2012 0:05:02 GMT
Has anyone got an explanation for this? Because the Met line serves Finchley Road which is very close, and they probably couldn't be bothered to build new platforms 1 stop away!  Also, I'm not sure whether the fast trains to Birmingham etc would stop there... hmm... |
|
|
|
Post by geriatrix on Jun 30, 2012 8:24:40 GMT
Would there have been room for Chiltern Line platforms?
And the Met could always stop at West Hampstead and nonstop Finchley Rd instead. It's only one stop on the Jubilee.
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on Jul 1, 2012 1:20:38 GMT
And the Met could always stop at West Hampstead and nonstop Finchley Rd instead. It's only one stop on the Jubilee. Conversely I believe that was the excuse for not having the Met stop at West Hampstead in the plans  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 4:58:37 GMT
Conversely I believe that was the excuse for not having the Met stop at West Hampstead in the plans But surely it is better to have all lines serving one main interchange station, instead of having two interchange stations. It would be much easier for travellers that way. |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 1, 2012 6:30:25 GMT
If I recall correctly the idea of a subway was not popluar with TfL and any bridge was not popluar with the locals. Also to pay for the works an oversight development over the Chiltern/Met lines was rejected by locals/council, effectively putting it back into the long grass.
It's been killed off now with the building of the new Thameslink station as the choosen design was incomparable with the planned rebuild. Efforts are going into better signage and pavement works rather than a major new build. Shame really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 7:03:38 GMT
What's wrong with a subway? And, why was oversight development rejected?
|
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 1, 2012 19:45:32 GMT
Subway was rejected on fears of safety and unsocial acts (the Thameslink side would be linked 24/4 to the street. Oversight development was objected by locals as living aroun the station for being out of place, blocking views etc.
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459 
|
Post by Fahad on Jul 1, 2012 22:26:26 GMT
Also, I'm not sure whether the fast trains to Birmingham etc would stop there... hmm... Incidental and unrelated, but they've been stopping as close as West Ruislip today and yesterday |
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Jul 1, 2012 22:27:40 GMT
Subway was rejected on fears of safety and unsocial acts (the Thameslink side would be linked 24/4 to the street. Oversight development was objected by locals as living aroun the station for being out of place, blocking views etc. How much would it cost to install some Bostwicks on the Thameslink platform? Or just close the entrance stairs altogether and force people to use the building? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 8:32:30 GMT
Also, I'm not sure whether the fast trains to Birmingham etc would stop there... hmm... Some services from Birmingham might. Quite a few lines into London have stations which medium-distance semi-fast services serve (eg: Finsbury Park, Clapham Junction, Stratford). West Hampstead could be like those stations. WHI would be very beneficial to the Chiltern Line because pax would be able to change trains there, instead of having to change at Marylebone, which is only served by one other rail/underground line (the Bakerloo). |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 2, 2012 9:54:26 GMT
Subway was rejected on fears of safety and unsocial acts (the Thameslink side would be linked 24/4 to the street. Oversight development was objected by locals as living aroun the station for being out of place, blocking views etc. How much would it cost to install some Bostwicks on the Thameslink platform? Or just close the entrance stairs altogether and force people to use the building? The idea was for for a joint subway/station so at least part of it had to be open 24/7 to allow Thameslink passengers access to the station. hence why when NR built the new entrance the interchange project was officially dead as it would never be between all three lines. What's a bostwick? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 10:28:27 GMT
The idea was for for a joint subway/station so at least part of it had to be open 24/7 to allow Thameslink passengers access to the station. hence why when NR built the new entrance the interchange project was officially dead as it would never be between all three lines. What's a bostwick? The folding gates as used at the front of stations www.millerwireworks.com/bostwick_type_folding_gates.phpYou would be able to shut the gates but not lock them to comply with fire safety. As Thameslink run 24/7 the whole station would effectively be open 24/7 and would need to be staffed accordingly. |
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Jul 2, 2012 10:37:20 GMT
Ah, I see
Would LUL/LOROL be allowed to put a locking gate at the Thameslink end of any subway, ensuring that past close of traffic, only the Thameslink part is accessible?
I think a Jubilee-Met-Chiltern-NLL interchange might be just as useful, with passengers having to walk down the road for Thameslink
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 11:04:44 GMT
I think a Jubilee-Met-Chiltern-NLL interchange might be just as useful, with passengers having to walk down the road for Thameslink Well, it would be better than no interchange at all. |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Jul 2, 2012 11:09:02 GMT
"Well, it would be better than no interchange at all."
As is currently the case Park Royal/Hanger Lane, Ruislip (Cent/Met), Network Rail FGW/NLL, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2012 11:21:31 GMT
Sorry. I think my last post was a bit unclear. I didn't mean 'It will do.' I meant 'Any improvement to interchanges is a good thing.'
|
|
|
|
Post by madandy on Jul 22, 2012 0:39:54 GMT
Subway was rejected on fears of safety and unsocial acts (the Thameslink side would be linked 24/4 to the street. Oversight development was objected by locals as living around the station for being out of place, blocking views etc.  That is really a pathetic excuse like maybe we should put fences around Hampstead Heath and lock the public out for the same reason.Precisely who would not use an interchange subway to get home considerably quicker on the off-chance of witnessing an "anti-social act" n the way through? The subway could always be closed at "anti-social" hours when both train traffic and vehicle traffic is not an issue if need be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 8:22:53 GMT
Ah, I see Would LUL/LOROL be allowed to put a locking gate at the Thameslink end of any subway, ensuring that past close of traffic, only the Thameslink part is accessible? I think a Jubilee-Met-Chiltern-NLL interchange might be just as useful, with passengers having to walk down the road for Thameslink I have a suspicion that under the Fire Regs if any part of a station is open then the whole station must be open so no locked gates anywhere but if anyone has a better knowledge I will happily withdraw. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Jul 22, 2012 9:06:48 GMT
Ah, I see Would LUL/LOROL be allowed to put a locking gate at the Thameslink end of any subway, ensuring that past close of traffic, only the Thameslink part is accessible? I think a Jubilee-Met-Chiltern-NLL interchange might be just as useful, with passengers having to walk down the road for Thameslink I have a suspicion that under the Fire Regs if any part of a station is open then the whole station must be open so no locked gates anywhere but if anyone has a better knowledge I will happily withdraw. fire regs require that emergency exit has be fitted with push bar to open gates if there was emegency - even if access is locked |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 22, 2012 12:16:21 GMT
Through the gates interchange is already permitted between the lines at West Hampstead (as at Park Royal/Hanger Lane).
The cost of the work would be difficult to justify when other projects need the money.
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Jul 23, 2012 16:27:09 GMT
I have a suspicion that under the Fire Regs if any part of a station is open then the whole station must be open so no locked gates anywhere but if anyone has a better knowledge I will happily withdraw. fire regs require that emergency exit has be fitted with push bar to open gates if there was emegency - even if access is locked How is this handled at Farringdon? Does the entire station remain open? Through the gates interchange is already permitted between the lines at West Hampstead (as at Park Royal/Hanger Lane). The cost of the work would be difficult to justify when other projects need the money. The same could be said of many accepted projects |
|
|
|
Post by causton on Jul 23, 2012 19:23:35 GMT
Ah, I see Would LUL/LOROL be allowed to put a locking gate at the Thameslink end of any subway, ensuring that past close of traffic, only the Thameslink part is accessible? I think a Jubilee-Met-Chiltern-NLL interchange might be just as useful, with passengers having to walk down the road for Thameslink I have a suspicion that under the Fire Regs if any part of a station is open then the whole station must be open so no locked gates anywhere but if anyone has a better knowledge I will happily withdraw. At Highbury and Islington (and I presume Old Street/Moorgate) there are gates between the LUL line and the National Rail line. When the NR line is not in use these are locked and I believe they do not have any means of opening those gates... ...unless there is a seperate emergency exit which fulfills the criteria of being able to leave that part of the station. In which case the same could be done at West Hampstead! |
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Jul 23, 2012 19:35:54 GMT
It's impossible to leave the GN section of Highbury & Islington without passing through the gates, as far as I'm aware
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2012 3:05:24 GMT
fire regs require that emergency exit has be fitted with push bar to open gates if there was emegency - even if access is locked A push bar works on fire doors but wouldn't be much use on a set of bostwicks |
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Jul 24, 2012 7:23:30 GMT
Don't LU Bostwicks have a green push to open handle-type-thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 24, 2012 8:20:36 GMT
I have a suspicion that under the Fire Regs if any part of a station is open then the whole station must be open so no locked gates anywhere but if anyone has a better knowledge I will happily withdraw. At Highbury and Islington (and I presume Old Street/Moorgate) there are gates between the LUL line and the National Rail line. When the NR line is not in use these are locked and I believe they do not have any means of opening those gates... ...unless there is a seperate emergency exit which fulfills the criteria of being able to leave that part of the station. In which case the same could be done at West Hampstead! Whenever I have seen those old bostwick style gates pulled across they have never looked to be locked or chained. I have seen them with a small gap left open or even at an angle. I think this is because they are really old and the channels they slide in are not free of debris. |
|
|
|
Post by djlynch on Jul 25, 2012 13:18:55 GMT
fire regs require that emergency exit has be fitted with push bar to open gates if there was emegency - even if access is locked A push bar works on fire doors but wouldn't be much use on a set of bostwicks I've seen fold-away panels with doors embedded used in tandem with Bostwick gates in the past. One side is hinged to the wall, the other side latches with the gate. I don't know how well it would work with spaces that are wide enough to require two gates meeting in the middle, but I suspect that it wouldn't be completely infeasible. |
|
|
|
Post by causton on Jul 26, 2012 1:07:18 GMT
At Highbury and Islington (and I presume Old Street/Moorgate) there are gates between the LUL line and the National Rail line. When the NR line is not in use these are locked and I believe they do not have any means of opening those gates... ...unless there is a seperate emergency exit which fulfills the criteria of being able to leave that part of the station. In which case the same could be done at West Hampstead! Whenever I have seen those old bostwick style gates pulled across they have never looked to be locked or chained. I have seen them with a small gap left open or even at an angle. I think this is because they are really old and the channels they slide in are not free of debris. Fair enough, I know I have myself moved some but didn't know they were like that. And as posted above, the newer style ones have a green emergency lever to push which may* activate an alarm when pushed and unlocks the gates. *I can't remember if my mind is making this up or if they do say alarmed on them... |
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 26, 2012 7:51:50 GMT
Anti-socials acts? Precisely what anti-social acts? That is really a pathetic excuse like maybe we should put fences around Hampstead Heath and lock the public out for the same reason.Precisely who would not use an interchange subway to get home considerably quicker on the off-chance of witnessing an "anti-social act" n the way through? The subway could always be closed at "anti-social" hours when both train traffic and vehicle traffic is not an issue if need be. [/color][/quote] As stated in my post the Thameslink side would be open 24/7 as the train service is the same (and unmanned at night as well) so there was no chance of losing it just th entrances to the Underground and Overground. |
|
That is really a pathetic excuse like maybe we should put fences around Hampstead Heath and lock the public out for the same reason.Precisely who would not use an interchange subway to get home considerably quicker on the off-chance of witnessing an "anti-social act" n the way through? The subway could always be closed at "anti-social" hours when both train traffic and vehicle traffic is not an issue if need be.
