On 9 Jun 2006 14:16:00 -0700, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote:


Charles Ellson wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 09:54:36 -0700, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote:


asdf wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:31:31 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote:

At a glance, it looks like a real blow for anyone commuting to central
London from Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead.

However both stations are very close to Kilburn Park and Swiss Cottage
respectively so there are alternative routes to central London.

They're not that close, the two Kilburns are a brisk five minute walk
apart and Swiss Cottage is about ten minutes uphill. The alternative
services don't run in the same directions either. If services to
Euston are withdrawn then one "what if" for consideration might be
re-opening Primrose Hill, restoring its old name and putting in a
pedestrian tunnel to Chalk Farm Northern Line station (although I
haven't got a map to hand to check the distance).

I think it's around 100m. But they should reopen the station in any
case - I'm surprised it doesn't appear in any of the proposals. I
think they'd be mad not to, unless there's a good reason why it can't
be done. (The platforms and station building are all still there.)
Linking Chalk Farm and Primrose Hill stations seems eminently sensible.
One of them should be renamed. I am not entirely sure which name is
the most geographically
accurate.

Chalk Farm is the more relevant name, and was what Primrose Hill was
previously named.

Also, connecting the South Hampstead platforms to Swiss Cottage station
would be good. However, I suspect the GC (Chiltern) bridge is in the
way of a link to the LU concourse. Elevators and escalators down to a
new mezzanine above the Jubilee tracks would be an alternative. But
this is expensive proposition and probably not worthwhile.

Swiss Cottage is some distance away from South Hampstead. Any link is
probably not worth the bother unless the GC tracks above South
Hampstead have got room to shoehorn in a couple of platforms and make
it a three-way interchange.
--
The slow tracks that complement the GC at this point are in effect the
Jubilee ones. There is little point in delaying passengers from
Banbury, Birmingham and even Wrexham for a minor interchange. As an
aside, West Hampstead is different because of the range of travel
possibilities. Indeed I think there is a case for closing at least one
station on the Neasden to Northolt section.

The Jubilee line is, I believe, below the WCML tracks somewhat beyond
the tunnel entrance behind (East of) the GC bridge. The Swiss Cottage
ticket hall is, I think, below Finchley Road which is the other side of
the flats if you are looking east from the South Hampstead Platforms.

An interchange is almost certainly technically possible IMHO.
Financially it is not viable. The new journey possibilities would be
very small in relation to the costs involved.

I think you're underestimating the distances (a large scale OS map
would be a great help at this point) and the case for interchange with
Swiss Cottage is even worse. South Hampstead is almost as far from
Swiss Cottage station as the latter is from Finchley Road station.
South Hampstead is a fair drop down when looking over the wall from
Alexandra Road and from that point it is further uphill to Swiss
Cottage station. The next nearest comparisons for such an interchange
would seem to be Green Park or Charing Cross/Trafalgar Square but even
those are much less spread out but IME to many passengers are a "long
walk" too far.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

alwaystouchout.com reports two developments under
development/consideration.
1: The takeover of the Queens Park - Watford Junction section by LUL
Bakerloo line trains will free up capacity for the Willesden - Primrose
Hill - Points East Service.

This seems sensible if combined with the building of the Croxley link -
allowing Watford semifasts via Baker Street to reach Euston Square in
the same or less time as the existing DC service. Is this feasible? Or
will Watford-Euston passengers be allowed to join any Euston bound
train in a similar manner to the commuters from Wolverhampton to
Birmingham New Street? What will happen to to the spare platform
capacity created at Euston?

2: Extending GOBLIN to Rainham to access the Thames Gateway.

Why stop at Rainham and not push on to Tilbury?
As the line from Barking to Rainham is already electrified at 25kv as
are large parts of the NLL - in this interests of broader operational
rationalisation would it not make sense for all stock including the ELL
to be dual voltage?
On a whole life cycle basis which is cheaper per mile 25kv overhead or
750v DC third rail?

On 16 Jun 2006 02:33:25 -0700, Bob wrote:

alwaystouchout.com reports two developments under
development/consideration.
1: The takeover of the Queens Park - Watford Junction section by LUL
Bakerloo line trains will free up capacity for the Willesden - Primrose
Hill - Points East Service.

I'm not sure this is really true any more. The new service via
Primrose Hill is now planned to start from Queens Park, so will only
use the section of the DC lines between Queens Park and Camden
Junction, which currently only sees 3tph anyway (compared to something
like 18tph north of Queens Park), so there's already plenty of
capacity there.

Besides, it strikes me that the new service is more a case of "we've
got this bit of railway and might as well do something with it",
rather than something which demands curtailment of other services to
create capacity for it.

This seems sensible if combined with the building of the Croxley link -
allowing Watford semifasts via Baker Street to reach Euston Square in
the same or less time as the existing DC service. Is this feasible?

Not really relevant - no one (in their right mind) travels all the way
from Watford to Euston on the DC lines anyway.

Or
will Watford-Euston passengers be allowed to join any Euston bound
train in a similar manner to the commuters from Wolverhampton to
Birmingham New Street?

I can't see why they'd make that change. In practical terms the
withdrawl of the Watford-Euston DC service would not decrease the
overall Watford Junction - Euston service level, as that's provided by
Silverlink County (which takes 15 mins instead of 45).

What will happen to to the spare platform
capacity created at Euston?

Probably more important would be the capacity freed on the Slow Lines
between Camden Junction and Euston, which might allow a small increase
in Silverlink County services (which could then use the "DC" platform
at Euston).

asdf wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 02:33:25 -0700, Bob wrote:

alwaystouchout.com reports two developments under
development/consideration.
1: The takeover of the Queens Park - Watford Junction section by LUL
Bakerloo line trains will free up capacity for the Willesden - Primrose
Hill - Points East Service.

I'm not sure this is really true any more. The new service via
Primrose Hill is now planned to start from Queens Park, so will only
use the section of the DC lines between Queens Park and Camden
Junction, which currently only sees 3tph anyway (compared to something
like 18tph north of Queens Park), so there's already plenty of
capacity there.


There is currently no physical connection having served South Hampstead
and Kilburn High Road. If trains were going to continue further than
Queen's Park after Primrose Hill, they'd have to cross immediately to
the AC lines and bypass the stations.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, reopening Primrose Hill as an
interchange with Chalk Farm would at least allow people to change to
the Northern, but basically Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead are
being abandoned. I think there will be a lot of complaints. Being
able to travel to Camden Road is not really equivalent to getting to
Euston in a couple of minutes if you work in central London.

A cheaper option, as I've suggested before, would be to build a new
crossover between Kilburn High Road and Queen's Park and allow
semi-fast trains to run from Euston to serve those two stations, then
cross tracks and stop at the currently unused Queen's Park platorms,
then Harrow and Watford or whatever. They'd have to be dual voltage,
but that's no problem really.



Besides, it strikes me that the new service is more a case of "we've
got this bit of railway and might as well do something with it",
rather than something which demands curtailment of other services to
create capacity for it.

This seems sensible if combined with the building of the Croxley link -
allowing Watford semifasts via Baker Street to reach Euston Square in
the same or less time as the existing DC service. Is this feasible?

Not really relevant - no one (in their right mind) travels all the way
from Watford to Euston on the DC lines anyway.

Or
will Watford-Euston passengers be allowed to join any Euston bound
train in a similar manner to the commuters from Wolverhampton to
Birmingham New Street?

I can't see why they'd make that change. In practical terms the
withdrawl of the Watford-Euston DC service would not decrease the
overall Watford Junction - Euston service level, as that's provided by
Silverlink County (which takes 15 mins instead of 45).

What will happen to to the spare platform
capacity created at Euston?

Probably more important would be the capacity freed on the Slow Lines
between Camden Junction and Euston, which might allow a small increase
in Silverlink County services (which could then use the "DC" platform
at Euston).

MIG wrote:

There is currently no physical connection having served South Hampstead
and Kilburn High Road. If trains were going to continue further than
Queen's Park after Primrose Hill, they'd have to cross immediately to
the AC lines and bypass the stations.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, reopening Primrose Hill as an
interchange with Chalk Farm would at least allow people to change to
the Northern, but basically Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead are
being abandoned. I think there will be a lot of complaints. Being
able to travel to Camden Road is not really equivalent to getting to
Euston in a couple of minutes if you work in central London.

A cheaper option, as I've suggested before, would be to build a new
crossover between Kilburn High Road and Queen's Park and allow
semi-fast trains to run from Euston to serve those two stations, then
cross tracks and stop at the currently unused Queen's Park platorms,
then Harrow and Watford or whatever. They'd have to be dual voltage,
but that's no problem really.

At South Hampstead, IIRC, there are platforms on the 'slow AC' i.e.
Silverlink Country tracks. A Watford, Harrow, Wembly service could in
theory call there. Although I suspect the stairs may need
replacing/refurbishing. I have no familiarity with Kilburn High rd.

Adrian.

On 16 Jun 2006 14:43:53 -0700, "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS"
wrote:


MIG wrote:

There is currently no physical connection having served South Hampstead
and Kilburn High Road. If trains were going to continue further than
Queen's Park after Primrose Hill, they'd have to cross immediately to
the AC lines and bypass the stations.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, reopening Primrose Hill as an
interchange with Chalk Farm would at least allow people to change to
the Northern, but basically Kilburn High Road and South Hampstead are
being abandoned. I think there will be a lot of complaints. Being
able to travel to Camden Road is not really equivalent to getting to
Euston in a couple of minutes if you work in central London.

A cheaper option, as I've suggested before, would be to build a new
crossover between Kilburn High Road and Queen's Park and allow
semi-fast trains to run from Euston to serve those two stations, then
cross tracks and stop at the currently unused Queen's Park platorms,
then Harrow and Watford or whatever. They'd have to be dual voltage,
but that's no problem really.

At South Hampstead, IIRC, there are platforms on the 'slow AC' i.e.
Silverlink Country tracks. A Watford, Harrow, Wembly service could in
theory call there. Although I suspect the stairs may need
replacing/refurbishing. I have no familiarity with Kilburn High rd.

The DC line platforms at Kilburn High Road are the original Main Slow
line platforms and what were the Main Fast lines (now the Main Slow)
also had platforms, vestiges of which could still be seen a few years
ago. When the DC line was built Kilburn High Road station was
basically unaltered, the DC lines replaced the Slow lines which were
slewed over to replace the Fast lines which were in turn slewed over
into a new excavation of the southern embankment. Unless somebody has
plonked any new construction into the station area in the past few
years this process should still be reversible to some extent. Bearing
in mind that tighter clearances are permitted with OHLE nowadays,
Primrose Hill DC line tunnels might not be incapable of being provided
with 25kV.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|