On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks,
but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between
the Met and Jubilee pairs? Doing this would of course be hopelessly
expensive and inconvenient.

You are of course right that there isn't room for platforms on the
Chiltern tracks, at least not without demolishing the houses on the north
side of Broadhurst Gardens or doing something equally ludicrous like
rerouting the line through tubes under the station.

tom

[1] Not sure what the proper name for these is - platforms outside the
tracks, as opposed to island platforms which are between them.

--
Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed
with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa

On Apr 15, 6:23*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met tracks,
but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of islands between
the Met and Jubilee pairs? Doing this would of course be hopelessly
expensive and inconvenient.

You are of course right that there isn't room for platforms on the
Chiltern tracks, at least not without demolishing the houses on the north
side of Broadhurst Gardens or doing something equally ludicrous like
rerouting the line through tubes under the station.

If this was a motorway expansion, you can be sure that a few houses
and businesses would be allowed to stand in the way.

Side platforms are not appropriate for this location. The Met. and
Jubilee should have two island platforms. The GC pair could also use
an island platform. All platforms should be linked by underground
tunnel and escalators to the North London line and Thameslink.


Adrian

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that.

There may not be space to add bank platforms [1] outside the Met
tracks, but isn't there space to rebuild the station as a pair of
islands between the Met and Jubilee pairs?

No. Probably the best you could manage is something like this:

---------------------------------
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
--\ ######## /-------------------
\--------/ /--------\
---------------/ ######## \------
---------------------------------

Doing this would of course be hopelessly expensive and inconvenient.

As would that.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On 15 Apr, 14:23, Tom Anderson wrote:
You are of course right that there isn't room for platforms on the
Chiltern tracks, at least not without demolishing the houses on the north
side of Broadhurst Gardens or doing something equally ludicrous like
rerouting the line through tubes under the station.

I think your best bet would be demolishing the workshop/warehouse
buildings between the line and Blackburn Road and slewing the whole
lot north. That'd give you enough space for platforms, though how much
length the curves would need is another matter.

(Actually the minimum width of an island platform is 4m. Allowing 3m
per track we can get a get a six platform station like Harrow-on-the-
Hill in 30m, and the current formation is already 37m wide. HotH is
46m wide)

btw, There's a mini interchange project planned as part of rebuilding
the Thameslink station, which will get a new entrance building above
the tracks, putting it slightly closer to the other two. The pavement
will be widened on that side past the Overground station and a better
crossing to the tube station provided.

U

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

On Apr 15, 2:36*am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. Adding
two more tracks on that section is a non-starter.

West Hampstead needs to be reconstructed as convenient rail
interchange. Most services passing thru the complex should stop,
inter city services excepted.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:10:01 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use? *I guess 10 years ago another two platforms at
Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

They're on a 999 year lease:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../sclord110.xml

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

One is obviously still in use, and the other two must have been for
when there was a big freight operation at Marylebone.

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

U

Another picture of the three tunnels at Lords being built is at
http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map...=1&mp=3&all=no
and at St Johns Wood
http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map...=1&mp=3&all=no
and another at the Canfield Place end is at
http://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map...=1&mp=3&all=no
Both these tunnel entrances still exist but the right hand one is
bricked up.
Anyone with a passing interest in the GCR ought to know about this
website - well worth exploring.

Guy Gorton

On Apr 11, 3:20*am, Guy Gorton
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:10:01 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant





wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use? *I guess 10 years ago another two platforms at
Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

They're on a 999 year lease:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...2008/04/10/scl....

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

One is obviously still in use, and the other two must have been for
when there was a big freight operation at Marylebone.

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

U

Another picture of the three tunnels at Lords being built is athttp://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map/getobjectmap.php?rnum=L1341&mapi...
and at St Johns Woodhttp://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map/getobjectmap.php?rnum=L1637&mapi...
and another at the Canfield Place end is athttp://www.railwayarchive.org.uk/map/getobjectmap.php?rnum=L1509&mapi...
Both these tunnel entrances still exist but the right hand one is
bricked up.
Anyone with a passing interest in the GCR ought to know about this
website - well worth exploring.

Guy Gorton

I agree, that is a great site.

Adrian