A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):
I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail
line at Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is
technically possible to build this, but the economic case will
depend on the success of the Overground system.

My response:
I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be built
on that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and the Central
Line at the other end. The West London line already interchanges with
the Central Line at Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more
new travel options.

What do the assembled experts think?

The top priority, of course, is getting Crossrail built - without
wasting time reconsidering all possible changes to the proposal.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:

A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):

I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail line
at Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is technically
possible to build this, but the economic case will depend on the
success of the Overground system.

I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be built on
that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and the Central Line
at the other end.

This location is known as Acton Wells, incidentally - Acton Wells Junction
is where the Dudden Hill freight branch and the curve from the GWML join
the NLL, where it crosses the Central and the Paddington - Chiltern line.

The West London line already interchanges with the Central Line at
Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more new travel options.

What do the assembled experts think?

It's been brought up about a billion times, and i think everyone likes it
from a connectivity point of view, but we have a hard time justifying it
in raw benefit-cost ratio (not that we've done the maths).

There are potential operating cost savings in it if it meant you could
close North Acton (definitely) and Acton Main Line (possibly).

The top priority, of course, is getting Crossrail built - without
wasting time reconsidering all possible changes to the proposal.

Debatable. Building it wrong now pretty much precludes building it right
any time in the near future. Would you rather have the wrong line now, or
the right line in ten years' time? I think that's a tough choice.

Incidentally, there was an idea to build a link through the depot around
there to run down to Richmond:

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/crossrail.pdf

tom

--
3364147 Complete space vehicles (excluding propulsion systems)

On 18 Oct, 21:38, Colin McKenzie wrote:
I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be built
on that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and the Central
Line at the other end.

The West London line already interchanges with
the Central Line at Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more
new travel options.

The problem you have is journeys to Paddington (and beyond) are
already covered well enough by the Bakerloo Line one stop north of
both these stations. Once stop south on the WLL you have a decent
route to Ealing Broadway (and Heathrow) via the Central Line. That
leaves NLL to points west as the only journey you're making more
convenient. I don't think that justifies the cost of essentially three
new stations in the middle of nowhere.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:

A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):

I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail line at
Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is technically
possible to build this, but the economic case will depend on the success
of the Overground system.

I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be built on
that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and the Central Line at
the other end.

The West London line already interchanges with the Central Line at
Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more new travel options.

What do the assembled experts think?

It's been brought up about a billion times, and i think everyone likes it
from a connectivity point of view, but we have a hard time justifying it in
raw benefit-cost ratio (not that we've done the maths).

Actually, i've changed my mind. There's perfectly good Central line
interchange at Ealing Broadway. What Crossrail needs most round here is
connections to the NLL and WLL. Yes, the NLL needs a link to the Central
too, but not as much.

Therefore, what Crossrail should do is diverge from the GWML around Mitre
Bridge (possibly via a loop round the south side of the maintenance depot
to the east of it), follow the WLL up to Willesden Junction, stop there,
then follow the WLL-NLL loop round to join up with the NLL, and take the
curve at Acton Wells to rejoin the GWML. There's enough space along that
route to add an extra pair, with really only ugly buildings being
demolished. It's a detour, but it gets you interchange with the NLL, WLL,
Bakerloo (er, relieving Paddington?) and WCML local services, plus a good
few bus routes.

tom

--
3364147 Complete space vehicles (excluding propulsion systems)

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:

A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):

I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail
line at Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is
technically possible to build this, but the economic case will
depend on the success of the Overground system.

I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be
built on that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and
the Central Line at the other end.

This location is known as Acton Wells, incidentally - Acton Wells
Junction is where the Dudden Hill freight branch and the curve from
the GWML join the NLL, where it crosses the Central and the
Paddington - Chiltern line.

Yes, and any station that links to both the GWML/Crossrail and the
Central Line would be in the middle of Acton Wells Junction, a vital
node on the London freight network, which also has links to the WCML and
the WLL. You would have to build a new bridge across the
Central/Chiltern lines and separate the freight traffic, thus making it
more difficult to justify the cost/benefit.

The West London line already interchanges with the Central Line at
Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more new travel
options. What do the assembled experts think?

It's been brought up about a billion times, and i think everyone
likes it from a connectivity point of view, but we have a hard time
justifying it in raw benefit-cost ratio (not that we've done the
maths).
There are potential operating cost savings in it if it meant you
could close North Acton (definitely) and Acton Main Line (possibly).

Acton Main Line is much closer to the centre of Acton than Acton Wells,
so closure of AML would be extremely unpopular. You could only close
North Acton if there was equivalent platform accommodation at Acton
Wells, which looks doubtful.

When the campaign group PROgress Alliance launched a petition* about
this on the PM's site (which attracted just 50 signatures, 1% of their
target), they hijacked a photo of mine without permission to illustrate
the site, their copy of which is at
http://bp1.blogger.com/_plHFyAJszvA/.../DSCN1210w.jpg
The bridge in the photo carries the NLL; the Chiltern line from High
Wycombe is on the left; the Central line is on the right; the GWML is
out of shot to the right.

* http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/StopAtNorthActon/


The top priority, of course, is getting Crossrail built - without
wasting time reconsidering all possible changes to the proposal.

Debatable. Building it wrong now pretty much precludes building it
right any time in the near future. Would you rather have the wrong
line now, or the right line in ten years' time? I think that's a
tough choice.
Incidentally, there was an idea to build a link through the depot
around there to run down to Richmond:

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/crossrail.pdf

That was the "Corridor 7" proposal to run a relatively low-cost branch
to Hounslow (NOT Richmond) via a link through Old Oak Common depot on to
the NLL, then from South Acton on to the Hounslow Loop using an existing
freight link. It would have made better use of some of the (up to) 14
trains per hour that are planned to reverse at Paddington. It would
have provided a connection between Crossrail and the NLL at Acton
Central.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Richard J. wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:

A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):

I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail
line at Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is
technically possible to build this, but the economic case will
depend on the success of the Overground system.

I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be
built on that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and
the Central Line at the other end.

This location is known as Acton Wells, incidentally - Acton Wells
Junction is where the Dudden Hill freight branch and the curve from
the GWML join the NLL, where it crosses the Central and the
Paddington - Chiltern line.

Yes, and any station that links to both the GWML/Crossrail and the Central
Line would be in the middle of Acton Wells Junction, a vital node on the
London freight network, which also has links to the WCML and the WLL. You
would have to build a new bridge across the Central/Chiltern lines and
separate the freight traffic, thus making it more difficult to justify the
cost/benefit.

You might, you might not. The Hounslow Crossrail proposal i linked to
concluded that there was enough capacity for Crossrail to run through
there; they weren't talking about a station, but they were talking about a
lot of trains.

The West London line already interchanges with the Central Line at
Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more new travel
options. What do the assembled experts think?

It's been brought up about a billion times, and i think everyone likes
it from a connectivity point of view, but we have a hard time
justifying it in raw benefit-cost ratio (not that we've done the
maths). There are potential operating cost savings in it if it meant
you could close North Acton (definitely) and Acton Main Line
(possibly).

Acton Main Line is much closer to the centre of Acton than Acton Wells, so
closure of AML would be extremely unpopular.

Fair enough.

You could only close North Acton if there was equivalent platform
accommodation at Acton Wells, which looks doubtful.

Sorry, i'm not familiar with the term "platform accomodation" - this is
presumably not about bunk-beds behind the gateline?

When the campaign group PROgress Alliance launched a petition* about
this on the PM's site (which attracted just 50 signatures, 1% of their
target), they hijacked a photo of mine without permission to illustrate
the site, their copy of which is at

http://bp1.blogger.com/_plHFyAJszvA/.../DSCN1210w.jpg

That's in the Hounslow proposal too!

Incidentally, there was an idea to build a link through the depot
around there to run down to Richmond:

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/crossrail.pdf

That was the "Corridor 7" proposal to run a relatively low-cost branch
to Hounslow (NOT Richmond)

Oops, my mistake.

via a link through Old Oak Common depot on to the NLL, then from South
Acton on to the Hounslow Loop using an existing freight link. It would
have made better use of some of the (up to) 14 trains per hour that are
planned to reverse at Paddington. It would have provided a connection
between Crossrail and the NLL at Acton Central.

Yes. Presumably, it would have been possible to run trains to Richmond
too, no? Although only if you deleted District line trains to release
paths, probably.

I like the Hounslow plan, too. Could perhaps synergise well with AirTrack!

Have there been any proposals to turn the rubbish branch from the GWML to
Brentford into a passenger route? It's mostly single-track, but it looks
like there's room to (re?)double it. To link it to the Brentford Loop,
you'd have to demolish a carpark and one of the buildings of the Brentford
Executive Centre. And put a bridge in the Great West Road. I don't know
what you'd use it for, though - the route runs almost entirely through
open ground. Freight? Could be useful for west-to-southeast (and
vice versa) traffic, but i don't know if there's much of that, and we
should get a freight tunnel under the Thames in the east some time in the
next 50 years which would make it redundant.

Looking at aerial photos, it's clear that the alignment once went beyond
where it ends today, at least as far as the Augustus Close bridge over the
Brent:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...3,0.00324&z=19

Where did it end up? A few hundred metres on, at Brentford docks?
Presumably there wasn't a bridge over the Thames that's since been lost ...

tom

--
3118110161 Pies

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Richard J. wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:

I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it
should interchange with the North London Line. New platforms
could be built on that line to interchange with Crossrail at
one end and the Central Line at the other end.

This location is known as Acton Wells, incidentally - Acton Wells
Junction is where the Dudden Hill freight branch and the curve
from the GWML join the NLL, where it crosses the Central and the
Paddington - Chiltern line.

Yes, and any station that links to both the GWML/Crossrail and the
Central Line would be in the middle of Acton Wells Junction, a vital
node on the London freight network, which also has links to
the WCML and the WLL. You would have to build a new bridge across
the Central/Chiltern lines and separate the freight traffic, thus
making it more difficult to justify the cost/benefit.

You might, you might not. The Hounslow Crossrail proposal i linked
to concluded that there was enough capacity for Crossrail to run
through there; they weren't talking about a station, but they were
talking about a lot of trains.

4 tph in each direction in addition to the same frequency on the NLL.
With careful timetabling, you can leave sufficient paths for the freight
traffic, but not if you put a station in the middle of the junction at
which all passenger trains stop.

The West London line already interchanges with the Central Line
at Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more new travel
options. What do the assembled experts think?

It's been brought up about a billion times, and i think everyone
likes it from a connectivity point of view, but we have a hard time
justifying it in raw benefit-cost ratio (not that we've done the
maths). There are potential operating cost savings in
it if it meant you could close North Acton (definitely) and Acton
Main Line (possibly).

Acton Main Line is much closer to the centre of Acton than Acton
Wells, so closure of AML would be extremely unpopular.

Fair enough.

You could only close North Acton if there was equivalent platform
accommodation at Acton Wells, which looks doubtful.

Sorry, i'm not familiar with the term "platform accomodation" -
this is presumably not about bunk-beds behind the gateline?

LOL! It means basically how many platforms and tracks you have. North
Acton, at the junction of the two western Central Line branches, has 3
platforms to provide operational flexibility. Inserting an extra track
and 3 platforms into the narrow cutting under the NLL bridge would be
tricky. The PROgress Alliance suggested a travelator/escalator link to
the existing North Acton station, but that just makes the cost/benefit
equation worse.

[...]
Incidentally, there was an idea to build a link through the depot
around there to run down to Richmond:

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/crossrail.pdf

That was the "Corridor 7" proposal to run a relatively low-cost
branch to Hounslow (NOT Richmond)

Oops, my mistake.

via a link through Old Oak Common depot on to the NLL, then from
South Acton on to the Hounslow Loop using an existing freight link.
It would have made better use of some of the (up to) 14 trains per
hour that are planned to reverse at Paddington. It would have
provided a connection between Crossrail and the NLL
at Acton Central.

Yes. Presumably, it would have been possible to run trains to
Richmond too, no? Although only if you deleted District line trains to
release paths, probably.

.... which Richmond residents vociferously opposed when it was proposed
by Crossrail in 2003.

I like the Hounslow plan, too. Could perhaps synergise well with
AirTrack!
Have there been any proposals to turn the rubbish branch from the
GWML to Brentford into a passenger route? It's mostly single-
track, but it looks like there's room to (re?)double it.

Except that the bridge (more like a tunnel) under the M4 was constructed
as single-track just after the branch was singled in the 1960s. It's
currently unsignalled south of Southall. By the way, the branch is
currently used for deliveries of aggregates as well as waste transfer.

To link it to the Brentford Loop,

(You mean Hounslow Loop)

you'd have to demolish a carpark and one of the buildings of the
Brentford Executive Centre. And put a bridge in the Great West Road. I
don't know what you'd use it for, though - the route runs
almost entirely through open ground. Freight? Could be useful for
west-to-southeast (and vice versa) traffic, but i don't know if
there's much of that, and we should get a freight tunnel under the
Thames in the east some time in the next 50 years which would
make it redundant.

Looking at aerial photos, it's clear that the alignment once went
beyond where it ends today, at least as far as the Augustus Close
bridge over the Brent:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...3,0.00324&z=19

Where did it end up? A few hundred metres on, at Brentford docks?

Correct! The bridge carrying Augustus Close is the original railway
bridge. See photos etc. (including some of mine) at
http://overground.doeth.net/brentford/.
Also http://www.brentford-dock.net/histor...tford-dock.asp for the
history of Brentford Dock.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:00:18 GMT, Richard J. wrote:

... which Richmond residents vociferously opposed when it was proposed
by Crossrail in 2003.

That should be a few Nimbys, and one loony councillor(now loony London
assembly member). The majority of people in south west london were in
support of the plan. I don't see why crossrail were so weak on the issue,
that bunch were not the cause for dropping the route.

Crossrail in its final form always seemed quite a weak proposal compared to
what it should have been.

Steve

Steve wrote:

... which Richmond residents vociferously opposed when it was proposed
by Crossrail in 2003.

That should be a few Nimbys, and one loony councillor(now loony London
assembly member). The majority of people in south west london were in
support of the plan. I don't see why crossrail were so weak on the issue,
that bunch were not the cause for dropping the route.

Is there any actual evidence that "the majority of people" were in support
(and silence is not a terribly convincing form of support). Losing the
District Line isn't a minor thing.

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Steve wrote:

... which Richmond residents vociferously opposed when it was
proposed by Crossrail in 2003.

That should be a few Nimbys, and one loony councillor(now loony
London assembly member). The majority of people in south west
london were in support of the plan.

That may be true but "south west London" is not the same as Richmond.

I don't see why crossrail were so weak on the issue, that bunch
were not the cause for dropping the route.

True. It was the cost of the tunnel to Turnham Green and the risk of
service unreliability from conflicts with other services that actually
killed Corridor 6. The Montague Report mentioned the opposition from
Richmond as a side comment only.

Is there any actual evidence that "the majority of people" were in
support (and silence is not a terribly convincing form of support).
Losing the District Line isn't a minor thing.

The comments left by visitors to Crossrail's own information centres in
2003 included a much higher proportion of negative comments at Richmond
than at any of the other centres, though the actual numbers responding
in most places were small. The loss of the District line service from
Richmond was one of the 12 key issues identified after the Round 1
Consultation in 2003/4.
Details at http://tinyurl.com/2yd73n

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)