|
Post by snoggle on Oct 16, 2017 15:23:08 GMT
This is the latest round of consultations over the design and location of two new stations in the Old Oak Common area to serve the proposed redevelopment zone and link with the new HS2 and Crossrail station. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/TfL have refined their preferred station design options and tweaked the specific locations for the proposed Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane stations. Interestingly in both cases they have opted for new stations on embankments with designs that don't look too far removed from the concrete shed concept used at Pudding Mill Lane on the DLR and proposed for Barking Riverside. I suspect these are relatively cheap to build compared to other options. There is a url glitch on one of the links to documents about Old Oak Common Lane stn but I've reported this to TfL so it should get sorted. Fixed now.
|
|
|
Post by toby on Oct 16, 2017 16:24:38 GMT
Depends so heavily on what the redeveloped area will look like once the stations open, or the phases of the larger site each finish. For example, I'd like to see a pedestrianised road between the Hythe Road and HS2/CR stations. Also where would the Chiltern station be, I'd guess west of the shaded connection of HS2 and CR. If old oak common lane is going to be that significant it should be wider, and probably compatible with double deckers. Stop me if I'm outside the remit of this consultation.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 16, 2017 16:59:28 GMT
Depends so heavily on what the redeveloped area will look like once the stations open, or the phases of the larger site each finish. For example, I'd like to see a pedestrianised road between the Hythe Road and HS2/CR stations. Also where would the Chiltern station be, I'd guess west of the shaded connection of HS2 and CR. If old oak common lane is going to be that significant it should be wider, and probably compatible with double deckers. Stop me if I'm outside the remit of this consultation. TfL were put under a fair bit of pressure about these stns from Assembly Members in the recent Budget Cttee Meeting. The AMs seemed to believe the stations should just be built ASAP without much consideration of anything else. From what was said by one key TfL person there is still a lot of debate about what the redeveloped area will look like (your point) and quite when each part of will be built. There was a lot of pressure about why they wouldn't be built until 2026 and if there was scope to bring forward construction. However the stations are not funded for construction and TfL are clearly expecting developer contributions to pay for them. I suspect this consultation has been brought forward slightly in response to pressure from the AMs but TfL did say consultation would be done "soon" and here we are. Don't expect rapid progress simply because so much is "up in the air" about the redevelopment area.
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on Oct 17, 2017 21:02:50 GMT
I don't see why Old Oak Common Lane can't be part of the same complex as 'Old Oak Common Station', am I missing something here? To be fair Hythe Road station is surely close enough also?
Also correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Central Line pass right at the southern end of the proposed Old Oak Common Lane Station? Surely a connection to the Central Line would be useful.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 18, 2017 12:41:20 GMT
I don't see why Old Oak Common Lane can't be part of the same complex as 'Old Oak Common Station', am I missing something here? To be fair Hythe Road station is surely close enough also? Also correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Central Line pass right at the southern end of the proposed Old Oak Common Lane Station? Surely a connection to the Central Line would be useful. Previous rounds of consultation mooted the possibility of different station locations and others have suggested very radical options. IIRC there is great reluctance to do anything that would entail taking land from the Wormwood Scrubs open land. This would enrage the locals and likely result in planning appeals and a lot of wasted time and money. I think TfL are also trying very hard not to move away from existing rail alignments so as to keep costs down. I think the final related factor is not trying to lose likely development land to transport facilities expect where this is unavoidable e.g. the HS2 stn itself and the road network / bus stands. People are already moaning that the Crossrail depot can't be built over in an affordable way which has reduced the likely housing gain in the area. TfL can't, because of Mayoral policies, be seen to be doing anything that might limit housing or other development in the area. If that means people have walks of around 300m between stations for interchange purposes then so be it. Clearly there are three things "missing" from the picture - the role of the Central Line in the development area, the possible Hounslow - Hendon / W Hampstead Overground diesel service which recently sprang back to life and the possible Chiltern service down the New North Line from the Ruislips. I think nothing is proposed for the Central Line in terms of extra stations. As for the other two well TfL have said little recently about the possible new Overground service. Local authorities seem to be leading on this but it would run via the Old Oak Common lane station if I've got my bearings right. The recent business case, produced for the local authorities, did make clear that there are some significant issues about junction redesign and bridge replacement for this new route given severe restrictions on possessions in and around Acton Wells. That may be enough to put TfL off from wanting to fund the project. I doubt we've heard the last of this prospective service. I think in better financial conditions for TfL they would probably have embraced it more willingly. TfL wouldn't be directly involved in a Chiltern related service consultation. If anything were to happen it'd be a matter for the DfT and the next Chiltern franchise from 2021. A new service to OOC has been mooted already but DfT won't consult on the scope of the next Chiltern franchise for a long while.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Oct 18, 2017 15:32:05 GMT
Given the self imposed limitations, this is probably the best that can be achieved, though it will result in a series of important interchange stations not quite close enough to be pleasant. Perhaps in time some sort of automated people mover can be built linking Old Oak Common, Willesden Junction, and North Acton stations.
The Dudding Hill line is the one appearing just behind the proposed site of the new western station, also on a viaduct?
|
|
|
Post by Deep Level on Oct 19, 2017 17:38:29 GMT
If they're against an underground link between the two then why not a design similar to West Ham?
|
|
|
Post by scheduler on Nov 7, 2017 6:19:57 GMT
Chiltern needs a station at South Hampstead where it goes right over the top of WCML / London Overground existing station on the Watford DC line.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 7, 2017 10:37:58 GMT
Chiltern needs a station at South Hampstead where it goes right over the top of WCML / London Overground existing station on the Watford DC line. To what purpose? Passengers in the Euston area wanting Marylebone/Baker Street service, or vice versa, already have the Circle Line to get from one to t'tother, or they can use the Bakerloo Line from Marylebone to reach Queens Park and beyond, or the Met (from Euston Square) to get to Harrow on the Hill for Chiltern. In any case, Chiltern runs the fast services on that axis - the semi fasts are run by the Met, and the stoppers by the Jubilee Line, which already has a station there - it's called Swiss Cottage (Curiously it's not listed as an OSI)
|
|
|
Post by shunterl44 on Nov 7, 2017 10:58:14 GMT
Two things Scheduler:
1. When the Manchester Sheffield & Lincoln (MSLR) (later the Great Central (GCR)) was in negotiations with the Metropolitan Railway there was an agreement that there would stations on the MSLR south of Harrow-on-the-Hill. When the cut-off line to Neasden to Northolt was built the Metropolitan were not happy with the GCR station at Wembly Hill (now Wembly Stadium) as they considered it breached the agreement. So, is the agreement still valid? Before the history buffs out there get too hot under their collective collars, I know that following the bomb damage to Brondesbury viaduct, there was a temporary station built at Neasden while access to Marylebone was unavailable.
2. I suspect that the distance between the two tunnels at South Hampstead would be too short to accommodate 8 or 9 coach Chiltern trains and I am not exactly sure what such an interchange would achieve. A better location for a new interchange would be in the West Hampstead where there would be multiple possibilities but what the implications on Chiltern line timings would be, i don't know.
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Nov 7, 2017 14:39:03 GMT
Without a metro style local service on the Chiltern line I really can't see the point in extra inner London calls, even at West Hampsted. I need to travel between the extremities of the Met line and NLL / GOBLIN locations on an occasional basis but extra stops on radial services on either the Met or Chiltern are a step too far. For me doubling back through Finchley Road is no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by scheduler on Nov 7, 2017 20:53:20 GMT
Chiltern need to have all the passing loops reinstated at all the local stations within London so that they can run a proper metro service and expresses, rather than the random stopping pattern currently in place.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Nov 7, 2017 21:03:29 GMT
Chiltern need to have all the passing loops reinstated at all the local stations within London so that they can run a proper metro service and expresses, rather than the random stopping pattern currently in place. I think I read somewhere that simply adding passing loops isn't enough. You need a large section four tracked. May be wrong though. I have to say, I think in many years to come, we will regret not having linked the overground station properly with old oak common.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 7, 2017 21:21:32 GMT
Chiltern need to have all the passing loops reinstated at all the local stations within London so that they can run a proper metro service and expresses, rather than the random stopping pattern currently in place. I think I read somewhere that simply adding passing loops isn't enough. You need a large section four tracked. May be wrong though. I have to say, I think in many years to come, we will regret not having linked the overground station properly with old oak common. You could probably run only with loops but journey times would be unacceptably long as trains waited while 2 or 3 fasts hurtled past. If you wanted decent / attractive journey times then you're right that more 4 tracking would be needed. Could you say what you mean by "properly served" by the Overground? Aren't the two extra stations enough? OK there is walking distance between them and the main OOC station but clearly no one is willing to entertain new railway alignments, other than HS2, in the site. Hence it's a case of plonking stations on existing lines and making the best of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 7, 2017 21:51:12 GMT
Chiltern need to have all the passing loops reinstated at all the local stations within London so that they can run a proper metro service. Is it worth it? Really? All Chiltern's stations within Greater London are within a short walk of a Tube station with a much higher frequency than Chiltern will ever manage. And it doesn't connect with anything else except at each end.
|
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 480
|
Post by londoner on Nov 7, 2017 21:57:22 GMT
I think I read somewhere that simply adding passing loops isn't enough. You need a large section four tracked. May be wrong though. I have to say, I think in many years to come, we will regret not having linked the overground station properly with old oak common. You could probably run only with loops but journey times would be unacceptably long as trains waited while 2 or 3 fasts hurtled past. If you wanted decent / attractive journey times then you're right that more 4 tracking would be needed. Could you say what you mean by "properly served" by the Overground? Aren't the two extra stations enough? OK there is walking distance between them and the main OOC station but clearly no one is willing to entertain new railway alignments, other than HS2, in the site. Hence it's a case of plonking stations on existing lines and making the best of the situation. Properly served would for me be one single station which was served by all lines and was accessible for all. I am aware it will increase the costs tenfold, but I can't shake the feeling that we will view it as a missed opportunity in the future. Ideally I'd put Old Oak Common Lane station on the opposite side of the road and have it connected to Old Oak Common station but I am not sure for what reasons this was avoided (I imagine there are some).
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 8, 2017 8:57:15 GMT
You can look at the earlier consultations/plans/proposals. This is the cheapest plan that involves both lines served by OOC.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 8, 2017 9:53:30 GMT
It is far more expensive to build one station in the "ideal" location and then build new track to serve it than it is to build two separate stations on the existing railways) . Most of the plans also involved extra mileage and/or very tight bends, which extend end to end journey times, to the disadvantage of passengers, and increasing the number of trains required to run the service.
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 8, 2017 11:53:20 GMT
This thread is specifically about the two Old Oak Common stations and not others so shouldn't the title reflect that?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Nov 8, 2017 15:48:34 GMT
I wonder if the increased interchange time for journeys has been properly monetised however. Its certainly frustrating that the modern quality of interchange has decreased significantly, nobody likes dragging luggage along never ending corridors. Perhaps in time though a way to speed particularly disagreeable examples will be possible.
Its just good they are still planning for two stations, with the severity of budget cuts taking place. Do the designs include safeguarding for Dudding Hill platforms, or Chilterns for that matter? Cannot recall if the West Midlands consultation spoke of 2 platforms or 4.
|
|
|
Post by toby on Nov 8, 2017 17:07:18 GMT
There's a mention of crossing the Dudding Hill line with a pedestrian bridge but other than that it sticks very much to the proposed buildings (two Overground, one HS2, one Crossrail). The master plan for the site has slipped somewhat and I've lost track of where it ended up.
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Nov 12, 2017 14:04:02 GMT
Given the constraints I get why the designs are as they are, but I can't help but feel the proposed OOC Lane station could be further south, making future platforms on the Dudding Hill line closer, and possibly making an in-station walkway to North Acton a bit more feasible. Move North Acton's platforms eastwards to the other side of the road and they'd basically be a single station, which in my mind would be ideal.
...and might be a sensible location for the proposed Chiltern terminal platforms, given the Crossrail will need all 4 of it's proposed platforms and I can't see any sensible way for the Chiltern services to end up on the northern side of the formation (for platforms over the HS2 platforms) without conflicting with the up Crossrail line from the flyover.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Dec 22, 2017 20:52:58 GMT
I received the following today:
|
|