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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

On Apr 4, 9:00*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote



The Chiltern services are not really suitable for the short-distance
journeys that could be expected in the peaks if they stopped at West
Hampstead. It could be different outwith the peaks and/or at weekends.
Another snag might also lie with what space might or might not be
available for the platforms to be reinstated.

There have never been platforms serving the Great Central (now Chiltern)
tracks at any station south of Harrow-on-the-Hill,

As was the agreement between the boards of the two railways when the
MS&L Ry London Extension was constructed.

so nothing to
'reinstate'. Did the Met station at West Hampstead have four platforms
during the period 1913 (when it was quadrupled) and 1939 (when the Bakerloo
took over the central pair of tracks)?

Lords, Saint Johns Wood, and Finchley Road were of course double
track. I do not know if the formation widened to four tracks at, or
before, West Hampstead. I do recall seeing a photograph of a very bad
crash at West Hampstead Met. Station. The platform, in the
photograph, appears to be an island. Whether it was a single island,
or, one of a pair, I do not know.

On Apr 4, 9:57 am, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 09:22:05 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
Their service is the odd one out through West Hampstead. It is maybe a
candidate for limited/non-stopping in peaks but otherwise providing a
connection which ISTR has been done elsewhere to prevent overloading
when near-parallel services are available.

There's a flaw in your logic. Services are only overloaded in the
peaks and, as you appear to agree, it would not be a good idea to foul
up the Chiltern service with additional stops in the peaks, or at all.
We're back to trainspotters' "lines on a map syndrome" again. Just
because lines converge, or run parallel doesn't mean that you have to
build an interchange.

Chiltern Railways is NOT a London suburban train operating company.
Providing an opportunity for Marylebone - West Hampstead journeys on
Chiltern services is a very bad idea, one that deserves to be kicked
into touch without any thought of it coming back into play.

I think you're missing the point of the platforms. The primary purpose would be to enable passengers from all the other Chiltern line stations aside from Marylebone to change onto other routes at West Hampstead. This creates all sorts of opportunities as a result of the orbital Overground railway. There may be some interchange in the opposite direction, but not many people at West Hampstead are going to want to travel to Marylebone - it's a small London terminus with only 1 tube connection, and not very conveniently located for the centre of London.

You "get it". Polson does not. He lives in the age of the BMC Mini,
Renting a (big plastic, tethered to the wall) telephone from the Post
Office, and comrade Barbara, dismantling the railways.

Chiltern Run a very good secondary service to Birmingham. But
arguably Chiltern is also a suburban railway. Amersham, Aylesbury,
Gerards Cross, et al, are for the most part London dormitories.

Whilst I accept that Chiltern Railways is not primarily a London Suburban train operating company, it does operate commuter services which may benefit from an addition interchange opportunity at West Hampstead. Define "London Suburban TOC". No TOCs operate just within London, with the exception of LO, if that is still considered a TOC rather than part of TfL. Chiltern Railways have some quite long routes, but it's hardly particularly long distance.

Chiltern fail to integrate well with London's railways on several
counts. Just converting the Central Line at West Ruislip's to side
platforms would enable many northwest bound passengers a simple cross
platform change.

By all means encourage interchange between the routes that *do* have
platforms at West Hampstead, but don't ruin a good service on Chiltern
by inserting unnecessary stops.

But you're not going to reduce any journey times by building some fancy tunnel/bridge solution between the different stations - the walking time won't be any different. OK maybe you'll save a few seconds of barrier time, but that's about it. Does West Hampstead (Thameslink) even have barriers?

Chiltern's services have improved, but they're still not that high-speed relative to VT, I don't see any major problem with an additional stop. If Liverpool Street services can all stop at Stratford, then why shouldn't Chiltern services call at West Hampstead, providing useful connections to many other lines.

Assuming the tracks could be realigned, there are many potential benefits of new platforms at West Hampstead. If you want a fast journey to Birmingham, use VT, or wait for HS2 ;-)

But anyway, we're wasting time, Chiltern have decided not to pursue it, for whatever reason, so it's probably not going to happen.

You are so right. In truth squeezing Chiltern platforms into West
Hampstead would not be easy, or inexpensive. That aside, there are
still plenty of interchange opportunities at West Hampstead.

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...

... 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...

It will have that already - I believe TfL just need to explain OSIs much
more clearly than they do at the moment.

Paul S

On Apr 4, 7:37*pm, 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...

But is there enough room to do this? IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee)
is in something of a cutting at this point.

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... :-)

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:21:42 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .

... 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...

It will have that already - I believe TfL just need to explain OSIs much
more clearly than they do at the moment.

That would not be enough for the many passengers who would be
unfamiliar with the locality or who would not wish to leave the
perceived safety/comfort of a contained interchange.