Colin McKenzie wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
The point where the NLL crosses the Central Line, which is about
300 metres east of North Acton station, is in the middle of Acton
Wells Junction, an absolutely crucial point in the freight
network. ...
Not necessarily. You could always build the station on the bridge...

As I said, that's in the middle of the junction. The link to the GWML is
south of the bridge over the Central Line, and the links to the WCML and
the WLL are north of it. It's also about 200 metres from the nearest
road. Reconstructing that lot to put a station on the bridge without
buggering up the freight services might be possible but would be hugely
expensive and unjustifiable.

I'm not sure it's quite as bad as you imply. It could be done so as to
give two interchanges rather than one, improving the benefit side of
the equation. The NLL crosses the GWML and Central Line about 200m
apart. Line this stretch with platforms, and put platforms on the GWML
as well. I think a station here would be no worse for GWML passengers
than where Acton Main Line is now. Road access would be from Brunel
Road and Victoria Road. Ideally the Central Line platforms would be
moved east.

Ideally the freight link to the GWML would join north of the new NLL
station, as a single-lead. This would be easier if the bridge were
widened to 3 tracks - which would also allow the GWML and the Dudden
Hill line to be linked without touching the NLL.

the Central Line.

This would seem to be an all round improvement. Three lines would have
interchange capability and the awefully sited Acton Main Line would be
moved.

IIRC, the Ringrail (remember Ringrail?) people seemed to think the NLL
could interchange with all these radial routes.

Adria, Los Angeles.