In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

Never mind all the diversions. Did the tunnelling actually start on 21st
March?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

On Apr 5, 8:47*am, wrote:
In article ,

(Charles Ellson) wrote:

Never mind all the diversions. Did the tunnelling actually start on 21st
March?

I cannot give you a definite answer. I have read that the TBMs have
been "launched"!. Perhaps some of our commuting contributors have
report back on their visuals.

On Apr 6, 8:40*am, Mark Goodge
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 08:35:59 -0700 (PDT), D DB 90001 put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Thursday, 5 April 2012 15:34:12 UTC+1, Chris J Dixon *wrote:
D DB 90001 wrote:

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...and
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampst....546779,-0.191...

Any chance you could manage to limit yourself to a reasonable
line length, it gets really difficult to read.

I guess Google is the culprit, but others seem to fight it into
submission..

My apologies. I think it's because of my 22 inch monitor which seems to make the lines very long when I'm in full screen mode. Although

No; it's a known bug in the new version of Google Groups. You can fix it by
going back to the old version.

Does any one actually like the new Google Groups? I fail to see any
andantage.

On Apr 5, 7:57*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:29:45 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
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......

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 is of course true, but access to these locations would be via overcrowded central stations such as Oxford Circus or (to a lesser extent) Baker Street. Rather than having to spend large amounts of money increasing capacity at Oxford Circus (which admittedly will need doing to some extent), it may be a more affordable option to re-build West Hampstead as suggested here.



That leaves Interchange with the orbital Overground. *This is
attractive. *But, alone it does not make a compelling case for major
reconstruction.

I would argue *very* attractive, the Overground has been a phenomenal success and provides great connectivity and at the same time avoids central London. Journeys that wouldn't previously have been considered because of large numbers of changes will be made possible. This would benefit TfL and Chiltern, enabling more direct journeys, and easing pressure on central London..



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.

Compulsory purchase is great isn't it. TfL or Network Rail force people to sell their businesses and then lease new properties probably at a much higher rate and make large amounts of money that can be ploughed back into the railways. Good stuff ;-)



There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and residential
development.

Is it not the local, or county, authority that exercise eminent domain
(compulsory purchase)? TfF, Network rail are the beneficiaries?

On 05/04/12 17:29, 77002 wrote:
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.

While I can imagine trains from Wycombe, Banbury and maybe Aylesbury
stopping at West Hampstead, I can't say the same for those from
Birmingham. That would be no more likely than trains from Leeds stopping
at Finsbury Park, from Birmingham at Willesden Junction or from
Leicester at West Hampstead. Oh, and Jamie, please could you try to
persuade Google to wrap your lines properly?

snip
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.

Where?

Roger

On Apr 6, 10:52*am, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 05/04/12 17:29, 77002 wrote:

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.

While I can imagine trains from Wycombe, Banbury and maybe Aylesbury
stopping at West Hampstead, I can't say the same for those from
Birmingham. That would be no more likely than trains from Leeds stopping
at Finsbury Park, from Birmingham at Willesden Junction or from
Leicester at West Hampstead. Oh, and Jamie, please could you try to
persuade Google to wrap your lines properly?

snip

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.

Where?

Harrow-on-the-Hill, or walk from Marylebone to Baker Street.

On 06/04/12 17:10, 77002 wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:52 am, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 05/04/12 17:29, 77002 wrote:
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.

Where?

Harrow-on-the-Hill, or walk from Marylebone to Baker Street.

Most Chiltern services don't pass through Harrow and we keep being told
that Moor Street to New Street, which is equivalent to Marylebone to
Baker Street, is impossible for most people.

Roger

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 02:01:56 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Apr 5, 7:57*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:29:45 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
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......

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 is of course true, but access to these locations would be via overcrowded central stations such as Oxford Circus or (to a lesser extent) Baker Street. Rather than having to spend large amounts of money increasing capacity at Oxford Circus (which admittedly will need doing to some extent), it may be a more affordable option to re-build West Hampstead as suggested here.



That leaves Interchange with the orbital Overground. *This is
attractive. *But, alone it does not make a compelling case for major
reconstruction.

I would argue *very* attractive, the Overground has been a phenomenal success and provides great connectivity and at the same time avoids central London. Journeys that wouldn't previously have been considered because of large numbers of changes will be made possible. This would benefit TfL and Chiltern, enabling more direct journeys, and easing pressure on central London.



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.

Compulsory purchase is great isn't it. TfL or Network Rail force people to sell their businesses and then lease new properties probably at a much higher rate and make large amounts of money that can be ploughed back into the railways. Good stuff ;-)



There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and residential
development.

Is it not the local, or county, authority that exercise eminent domain
(compulsory purchase)? TfF, Network rail are the beneficiaries?

Compulsory purchase powers are available to local and national
government and to various other bodies under a range of legislation
and for varying purposes. Property will not always pass by purchase,
e.g. some of my drains are now the property (along with responsibility
for repair and upkeep) of the local water company due to recent
legislation affecting common drains.

77002 wrote

There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and
residential
development.

Is it not the local, or county, authority that exercise eminent domain
(compulsory purchase)? TfF, Network rail are the beneficiaries?

Too US-centric an assumption. Recall that the trad means of
constructing a new UK railway was to promote a private act of
parliament which allowed compulsory purchase as needed by a new or
existing company.

So it might be TfL or Network Rail or a specially set up company, under
court and Dept of Transport supervision. Same for a pipeline or a toll
motorway.


--
Mike D