On Apr 5, 2:39*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee)
is in something of a cutting at this point.
If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt.
My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila.
Looking at the aerial photography, I would suggest that it might
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee)
is in something of a cutting at this point.
If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt.
My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila.
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee)
is in something of a cutting at this point.
If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt.
My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila.
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee)
is in something of a cutting at this point.
If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt.
My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila.
Looking at the aerial photographs (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=skq...=183.09&st...), I think I might have a slightly better solution. If the station was to be relocated to the West of the bridge, land take could probably take place to the North and the South of the new station - and the close proximity to the London Overground platforms would make a station interchange somewhat shorter. Removing the turn-back sidings would free up space for some of the island platforms, and the lines could be realigned without requiring any changes to the bridge. It looks like there is potential for retaining walls to the West of the bridge, as suggested before. Seehttp://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.54695933837645~-0.192700713872904...andhttp://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampstead,+uk&hl=en&ll=51.546779,-0.191...
If TfL, etc. were going to build this interchange, this would be the
way to go. Having platforms closer to the Overground has its
attractions.
However, having given it some though, I question the value of stopping
Chiltern trains at West Hampstead. The Jubilee Line parallels the
Bakerloo across the West End. Passengers for Kings Cross Saint
Pancras, or the City can change elsewhere for the Metropolitan.
That leaves Interchange with the orbital Overground. This is
attractive. But, alone it does not make a compelling case for major
reconstruction.
By all means improve the interchange between the Jubilee, Overground,
and Thameslink. This could probably be paid for by developing and
renting out the air space above the stations.
There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and residential
development.