New Thameslink station at Brent Cross gets Council go ahead

[KCL]

https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/brent-cross-thameslink-station-gets-green-light-1-6661764

 

Barnet councillors give green light to new station in Brent Cross.

 

The new Thameslink station will connect the Brent Cross redevelopment to St Pancras in the south and to Luton and St Albans north of London.

It is due to be built by 2022 and will be served by eight trains per hour at peak times.

The approval marks a step forward for Barnet Council’s flagship Brent Cross regeneration plan, which is designed to provide 7,500 new homes and more than 20,000 new jobs.

Feasibility studies show the station could also link up to the West London Orbital route – a proposed rail link running between Hendon and Hounslow.

The Thameslink station, which had already received outline planning consent, had its detailed designs approved at a meeting of the planning committee on May 13.

 

Early provision of the station – which is being funded by government grants and the council’s capital budget – is designed to act as a spur to the delivery of the wider Brent Cross scheme.

 

 

[jonhall]

also here https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2020/05/20/new-railway-station-at-brent-cross-west-gets-approval/

jon

[Joseph_Pestell]

Surely more sensible to make this new station the terminus/interchange for the West London Orbital scheme rather than have to do additional work at Hendon. I think I am right in saying that the N & SW Jct line has not seen passenger services for over 100 years. But the revived Tottenham & Hampstead, North London and East London Lines have shown that orbital lines have a part to play in London.

 

I'm a bit surprised that they are going to go to the extra cost of platforms on the fast lines without a commitment to trains stopping there which would surely be difficult to accommodate within the existing timetable paths.

 

Edit to add: Google Earth shows a lot of work already going on round the back of the shed at Cricklewood Depot. This is presumably to move the uncovered sidings to make space to slew the running lines to make space for the new platforms.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Zomboid]

Fast line platforms ensure that the station can be served during disruption (planned or otherwise) the would prevent them from using the slow lines. I suppose the extra cost must be pretty marginal for that to justify it.

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

Fast line platforms ensure that the station can be served during disruption (planned or otherwise) the would prevent them from using the slow lines. I suppose the extra cost must be pretty marginal for that to justify it.

There are several stations on the London end of the WCML that have platforms for the fast lines that get very little use. I cannot remember seeing them used at Apsley for some time. However on the upgrade a few years ago they were included, so the powers that be must consider the flexibility provided does justify the cost.

Bernard

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

There are several stations on the London end of the WCML that have platforms for the fast lines that get very little use. I cannot remember seeing them used at Apsley for some time. However on the upgrade a few years ago they were included, so the powers that be must consider the flexibility provided does justify the cost.

Bernard

In many ways, I welcome this. It is a big change in attitude by comparison with the sort of stupidity/negativity that saw a single track approach to Stansted Airport.

 

But it is going to come at quite a cost in this case as it will mean slewing tracks further eastwards.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell
Add

[Zomboid]

I think the economics of the industry structure makes that kind of thing more viable. If NR only provide slow line platforms, they'll presumably have to pay more compensation to the TOC when they make it impossible for a train to call at the station rather than having a reduced service on the fast lines that still serves it.

 

The Victoria to Brighton line stations also pretty much all have fast line platforms, which are maintained in (just about) useable condition, though it's pretty rare for a train on the fast lines to call at Wandsworth Common. And the GWML (with a couple of exceptions at Acton and Burnham)

[jonhall]

SWT's Sunday morning service on the SW mainline/suburban was timetabled to only need one pair of lines, so that p/way had a decent access window - it meant the occasional use of the center platform in places like New Malden which don't usually get used.

 

One of the known problems with the Brighton line is that when Southern/GEX and Thameslink were all separate franchises they each tried to fill the available paths, partly to maximise their claim on the fare pool, and partly to stop the other 2 franchises from doing the same! It meant that there  wasn't a clear possession window in the timetable for preventative works, and therefore it ended up with the engineers waiting for a failure because they would have to be granted a possession to fix a fault. I don't know if things have got better under the unified franchise, but it was one of the review recommendations  after GTR's problems, that Gatwick didn't need 3 competing services all night, and that giving the engineers planned windows to work improves reliability.

 

Jon

[NorthEndCab]

The North sidings at Cricklewood (where the EMR HST’s stable in the day) are due to be demolished from next month and EMR stock will stable in the new sidings just North of Cricklewood station. 

[Trog]

On ‎21‎/‎05‎/‎2020 at 15:40, Joseph_Pestell said:

Surely more sensible to make this new station the terminus/interchange for the West London Orbital scheme rather than have to do additional work at Hendon. I think I am right in saying that the N & SW Jct line has not seen passenger services for over 100 years. But the revived Tottenham & Hampstead, North London and East London Lines have shown that orbital lines have a part to play in London.

 

Looking on Google earth there does not look to be much room between where the Brent Curve line from Dudding Hill Junction comes in at Brent Junction and the Brent Viaduct,

 

Which gives three rather unattractive alternatives, all of which look doubtful to me on an available space to fit S&C and platforms basis.

1, Put a fifth and sixth platform face on the Hendon Lines, more expense and room looks tight. 

2, Use the Dn Fast line platform to reverse this service, even tighter for space and obstructs use of the DF.

3, New junctions and conflicting moves to use the slow line platforms, huge expense and I don't think there is room.

 

However if the trains run to Hendon on the Hendon Lines, a back face could be added to the existing DF platform and I think there may even be the remains of a platform on the Dn Hendon. There is even an existing crossover south of Hendon that could be used, to allow trains to turn back on the Up Hendon at a new back face to the existing DF platform. If this could be done avoiding the need for P-Way alterations and new platforms, needing only a new face putting on an existing platform and perhaps some signalling alterations it would save megabucks.

[daveyb]

On 22/05/2020 at 00:38, Bernard Lamb said:

There are several stations on the London end of the WCML that have platforms for the fast lines that get very little use. I cannot remember seeing them used at Apsley for some time. However on the upgrade a few years ago they were included, so the powers that be must consider the flexibility provided does justify the cost.

Bernard

They were definitely in use in Aug 14 for the weekend of the Great British Beer Festival. They were the platforms used for the shuttle service when the complete WCML was closed from Watford Junction south and Virgin Trains were terminating at Milton Keynes. There was work done on the slow lines at Apsley to Kings Langley. Perfect example of what you describe.

[daveyb]

I didn't see any residential in the plans I quickly looked at.  Is this simply a case of moving Cricklewood station north by about 2km?  The area could do with a bit of a revamp and the old station is no longer in the area that needs most passenger access

 

The Hendon/Hounslow bit is a little more involved, admittedly.

 

I'll make sure to avoid the area... So no change from the last 50 years (with the exception of some work experience at CW in '84!).

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 hours ago, Trog said:

 

Looking on Google earth there does not look to be much room between where the Brent Curve line from Dudding Hill Junction comes in at Brent Junction and the Brent Viaduct,

 

Which gives three rather unattractive alternatives, all of which look doubtful to me on an available space to fit S&C and platforms basis.

1, Put a fifth and sixth platform face on the Hendon Lines, more expense and room looks tight. 

2, Use the Dn Fast line platform to reverse this service, even tighter for space and obstructs use of the DF.

3, New junctions and conflicting moves to use the slow line platforms, huge expense and I don't think there is room.

 

However if the trains run to Hendon on the Hendon Lines, a back face could be added to the existing DF platform and I think there may even be the remains of a platform on the Dn Hendon. There is even an existing crossover south of Hendon that could be used, to allow trains to turn back on the Up Hendon at a new back face to the existing DF platform. If this could be done avoiding the need for P-Way alterations and new platforms, needing only a new face putting on an existing platform and perhaps some signalling alterations it would save megabucks.

I will take another look at Google Earth but I don't think that length of platforms for the new N&SW service would be a problem. Width is more of an issue with properties close up to railway boundary on the west side. So each additional platform means more slewing of all the other lines. But it would seem very strange for the new service to not serve this new major station and development area.

Your options 2 & 3 can be totally discounted as these lines are already at capacity.

So I think that a six-platform station is a given. Having built that, is Hendon such a draw that it is worth the cost of extending the service there? I can't see it.

Or we could look much bigger. With such an excellent track layout (flyovers) north of Hendon, we could extend the service further (St Alban's or Luton). Potentially comes up against timetable capacity issues - although I think it probably is feasible. I suspect that, as many times before, the strategic "thinking" has been muddied by Local Govt boundaries.

 

[Trog]

My whole point is that Hendon is the cheap option, as you can use the existing station facilities and the needed cross-over for reversal is already there. As you say width is a problem at the new station site doubly so as you can not start spreading the tracks until clear of the Brent Viaduct, so  what width of railway land is available may not all be useable, and the Brent Curve soon starts to dive away behind the old Recess Sidings site. You could put platforms on the start of the Brent Curve, but that would then be rather detached from the MML platforms, and gradient and curvature might be a problem. As I believe that the middle part of the Brent Curve is of tight enough radius that it should not be made into CWR.

[Joseph_Pestell]

32 minutes ago, Trog said:

My whole point is that Hendon is the cheap option, as you can use the existing station facilities and the needed cross-over for reversal is already there. As you say width is a problem at the new station site doubly so as you can not start spreading the tracks until clear of the Brent Viaduct, so  what width of railway land is available may not all be useable, and the Brent Curve soon starts to dive away behind the old Recess Sidings site. You could put platforms on the start of the Brent Curve, but that would then be rather detached from the MML platforms, and gradient and curvature might be a problem. As I believe that the middle part of the Brent Curve is of tight enough radius that it should not be made into CWR.

 

I totally agree that Hendon is the cheap option. But that has so often been the downfall of the UK rail network - going for the cheapest rather than the best value.

 

Just had another look on Google Earth. There is certainly enough space for platforms on the goods lines between the junction and the viaduct as well as a crossover for turnback. To allow enough space south of the Brent viaduct to slew tracks for the other platforms will probably mean that these platforms will be staggered a bit to be a bit further south than the platforms for the Orbital service. We might even see a double length thin platform serving the Up Goods and the Down Main. Not ideal but if the Down Main platform is only for occasional use it would be a sensible compromise.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell
Add

[Zomboid]

The scheme is proposed as another part of the Overground network, which would make sense for what it would be. The main interchange with the wider MML would be at Kentish Town on the other leg of the proposed service, so I'm not convinced that taking Overground trains further north than the independent lines allow would be the ideal way to go. The good folk of St Albans already have to put up with 700s, I wouldn't wish Overground trains onto them as well...

Edited May 24, 2020 by Zomboid

[ess1uk]

i had heard a little about this, how is progress?

[Hairy Bear Digital]

Steady.....slow lines now both slewed,  new platform under construction.  Framework of footbridges in place. 

Fast line being slewed this weekend I believe.