On Apr 4, 8:13*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:37:54 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 07:26:31 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
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.

Whilst I am also of the opinion that Chiltern platforms at WH would be worth the cost, far more useful I suspect would be a rebuild for Met platforms (I'm thinking islands as at WP & FR), with the current ones at FR skipped. The Met stopping at FR can only interchange with the Jubilee...but interchanging at WH....much more useful. On their own, Chiltern platforms probably don't stack up....but adding in an island for Chiltern whilst doing the rebuild for the Met kinda makes sense...

Whilst I agree that 2 stops in quick succession would not seem to make sense for the Metropolitan line, I don't know if the locals would be satisfied with any reduction in service at Finchley Road. In addition, Finchley Road is quite a major hub for buses (buses from Finchley Road:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaro...finchleyroad-2...) so any reduction in service could cause unwanted disruption for passengers using bus/tube to make their journey. West Hampstead, although a major rail hub, only has 2 bus routes (buses from West Hampstead:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaro...hampstead-...). So I would suggest keeping the Metropolitan line at Finchley Road for the reasons given above.

Interchange between Metropolitan and Overground is already do-able via Finchley Road and Frognal, although the walk is closer to 10 minutes rather than 5.

Even if the cost of the platforms could be found from somewhere, the cost of the works would be significantly increased because the width of the railway lines is constrained by the bridge to the West. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether there is enough room for 3 island platforms:http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=skr...&dir=90.19&sty...

That's not even considering any land-take that might be required to the North or South of the station.

I suppose if land-take was going to be significantly expensive, then you could just put the Chiltern lines in tunnels below the Jub/Met lines, but that wouldn't exactly be cheap.

Replacing the cutting sides with retaining walls might do it.
Otherwise homes and businesses would have top be purchased.

I can understand why Chiltern didn't pursue this... :-)