On Apr 3, 10:56*pm, D DB 90001
wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 April 2012 21:52:19 UTC+1, Bruce *wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:08:49 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:
On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote:

Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets.
This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be
run in a similar manner to Thameslink?

I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the
present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be
more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro
less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and
GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express
workings.

Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with
GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead.
Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions
infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one.

West Hampstead is one of London's biggest, wasted, transportation
opportunities.

It's not conveniently near a seaport to get the people to Oz, is it ?

Oh, very funny Charles. *;-)

West Hampstead is one of those places where trainspotters pore over
lines on maps and think "we must build an interchange station here, so
people can change trains between all these converging lines".

Given that the lines have all been in situ for more than a century, if
there was any real demand for this interchange, don't you think
someone would have done it by now? *The only evidence of any demand
seems to come from trainspotters clutching their rail atlases.

I used to work in the area. Those whose navigational abilities were
limited to the map in the back of their diary (and there are IME still
lots of them) might have agreed but that is not entirely their fault.
In past times useful interchange would have been practically limited
to those aware of the more exotic routings available with season
tickets but that should no longer apply with current zoned ticketing.

It is not the idea of interchange between the three stations which is
wrong as much as the typically over-enthusiastic plans for achieving
it. At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating
"out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly
helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware
of it; the walking distances involved are less than many same-station
interchanges in Central London. Rather than building one dirty great
station, what is needed is improved pedestrian links between them
where possible; if/when the NLL and LU/NR bridges at the two southern
stations are replaced then there should be no excuse for not
incorporating pedestrian routes at that time if not already done as
e.g. a partial or complete footbridge/tunnel route from West Hampstead
LU via West End Lane station to West Hampstead Midland.

I agree that the grandiose solutions being proposed to solve this
non-problem were ludicrous. *But there is one major obstacle to a full
interchange, and that is the lack of Chiltern Line platforms.

Not that Chiltern Railways would be interested. *The last thing
Chiltern needs is another stop further extending journey times just to
benefit a very small number of passengers.

The abolition
of the long-established failure by assorted parties to admit that LU
are not the only railway operators in Greater London would also be a
lot of help.

I think a recognition that Chiltern's primary role does not include
operating suburban services within London would help a lot more.

IIRC Chiltern considered operating a Metro-style service, but the plans were dropped, presumeably because of the low-return on investment expected. Significant enhancements would be required in order to enable Chiltern to maintain a high-frequency metro service in addition to their relatively high-speed long distance services.

I agree that a grandiose solution is not necessary, the fact is that West Hampstead (Overground)* and West Hampstead (Underground) are a fixed distance apart, and a tunnel/bridge will not reduce this distance. There have already been some enhancements to the walking route including traffic light crossings and better signage. If I remember correctly there were also concerns that the aforementioned bridge/tunnel could become a hub for crime because of its secluded nature and relatively low footfalls - it might actually be "safer" to keep the walking route to the road.

Bearing all of that in mind, I do think that Chiltern and London Underground/Overground/Thameslink would benefit from an investment in Chiltern and Metropolitan line platforms. Not only would you enable journeys between the Chiltern line and Thameslink/Overground it would also ease pressures on Marylebone's Bakerloo Line station by enabling interchange with Metropolitan and Jubilee line services. Chiltern platforms at Finchley Road would have similar outcomes at lower costs, but not benefit from connections to Thameslink/Overground.

There is no space for Chiltern and Metropolitan Platforms at West
Hampstead. However, allowing Thameslink passengers easy access the
West End (thru the Jubilee Line), and the orbital services provided by
London Overground would be very worthwhile. It would certainly offer
an alternative to the crowded Marylebone Road/Euston Road
interchanges.

Our self-righteous refugee from the 1960s havers on about demand. He
seems blind to the fact that in his "golden age" the North London
Line, et al was being run down. Look at the Overground today.
Passenger convenience is improved as routes are improved or re-opened
and new interchanges created.