Class 700

[Siberian Snooper]

If they convert part of the M4 to a "Smart Motorway", I hope they do it a darn sight quicker (and smarter) than it's taking them to do the M3. The roadworks (and 50mph contaflow) seems to have been going on for years.....

 

It took 'em several years to make the M5 in the Bristol area smart and that section of motorway is not as long as the section on the M3 and if they are going to do the M4, it would probably be better to move to East Anglia.

[roundhouse]

If we are heading West or even Birmingham from home we go via Reading with Redhill being our home station. A very useful line for us and keeps us off both Thameslink (700's once they are all in service) and Southern with their current problems.

[Arun Sharma]

We seem to be having a circular argument here which hinges around perceptions of the purpose of Crossrail.

In the dying weeks of Ken Livingstone's mayorship the London Underground Railway Society was treated to an evening presentation by Ken's [now deceased] TfL Commissioner. I asked him," Why had TfL gone for importing and thence cramming more transit passengers into London Terminals to catch trains leaving London on radial routes when a more logical transport solution might have been to build an orbital railway version of the M25 utilising existing mothballed or underused routes". His answer was disarmingly honest, "It was then and always had been, that the TfL aim was always to get transit passengers to pick up their trains from Central London termini because they then spent money at these stations and that was good for London's coffers".

 

Understanding that concept does explain why we might not get the most logical routing or infrastructure.

[Fenman]

The site search engine has failed to turn up a general Thameslink thread, so this seemed the most obvious place to link to GTR's massive consultation exercise on the 2018+ timetable - here: http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation

 

Am posting on my phone so can't make that a clickable link - perhaps someone else can oblige, if it's of interest.

 

Paul

[phil-b259]

The site search engine has failed to turn up a general Thameslink thread, so this seemed the most obvious place to link to GTR's massive consultation exercise on the 2018+ timetable - here: http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/your-journey/timetable-consultation

 

Am posting on my phone so can't make that a clickable link - perhaps someone else can oblige, if it's of interest.

 

Paul

 

Hmm.... very interesting.

 

The latest plan ditches Caterham / Tattenham Corner options in favour of a service to Rainham (Kent) Via Greenwich & Dartford, plus Maidstone East gets an all say service

[Fenman]

Hmm.... very interesting.

 

The latest plan ditches Caterham / Tattenham Corner options in favour of a service to Rainham (Kent) Via Greenwich & Dartford, plus Maidstone East gets an all say service

Having waded through most of it (including the muted admission of their failure to deliver the promised improvements for the Fen line), it strikes me as an interesting exercise. I've read the comments on the Crossrail thread where it seems none of this sort of detail has been shared with GWR passengers. I wonder why the GTR approach is so different?

 

Paul

[phil-b259]

Having waded through most of it (including the muted admission of their failure to deliver the promised improvements for the Fen line), it strikes me as an interesting exercise. I've read the comments on the Crossrail thread where it seems none of this sort of detail has been shared with GWR passengers. I wonder why the GTR approach is so different?

 

Paul

 

I think you need to clarify that statement. It is Network Rail who are to blame for the delays to the essential infrastructure enhancements (Ely North Junction, Platform extensions and new bay platforms at Stevenage) NOT the management of GN or GTR in general. Particularly telling is the statement that funding has been provided by the DfT for the new Stevenage platforms - but nothing has yet happened to actualy get them built.

 

Personally I wonder whether this obsession with the 'no lineside signals / digital railway / ERTMS' agenda* - which, we were told several years ago (with lots of flashy PR) was to be pioneered on the southern section of the ECML is to blame. Its all very well producing wonderful PR about what technology will be able to do in the future - but if you actually want something delivered quickly, going with current technology is always a better bet.

 

People should note I say this as a NR employee.....

[Fenman]

I think you need to clarify that statement. It is Network Rail who are to blame for the delays to the essential infrastructure enhancements (Ely North Junction, Platform extensions and new bay platforms at Stevenage) NOT the management of GN or GTR in general. Particularly telling is the statement that funding has been provided by the DfT for the new Stevenage platforms - but nothing has yet happened to actualy get them built.

 

...

 

People should note I say this as a NR employee.....

I'm fully aware of NR's miserable failings on this route. Equally, GTR lost no time in boasting about what their then-new management would deliver. Funnily enough, their retraction is much more low-key. Who'd have thought it?

 

A new piece of information is the proposed date for the interim solution for the Fen line - running 8-car EMUs instead of 4-car, which involves NR in power upgrades and, apparently, platform lengthening (SDO apparently being beyond the wit of the parties involved).

 

Related, I'm still unclear how Anglia's new mainline fleet - consisting only of 12-car EMUs - is going to operate their peak hours Lynn-Liverpool Street services. I guess they'll either disappear from the timetable, or be operated by one of the new 4-car DEMUs - though it would seem strange to buy a brand-new DEMU for a line that's been fully electrified for 30 years.

 

Paul

[uax6]

The Fen line has been having OHL works for over two years now, mainly to do with replacing life expired stanchions  (Some have become very banana shaped in 20 years, the rest are just at funny angles to the trackbed, so new piled bases are being provided to replace the mass concrete ones) although transformers are being replaced too.

 

With regards to 8 car-ing the services, I am told that SDO cannot be introduced on lines that didn't have it before a certain date (I find that hard to believe, but the only time that 8 car trains have called here at Littleport, the rear set has been locked out of use). The platforms at LTP and Maggy Road Watlington are to be increased in length to at least 8 car, which involves removal of a foot crossing in one location, and the moving of a signal at another. Last I heard was that the project was at Grip 2 stage. I'm told that the platforms can be lengthened in two overnight weekend possessions, the first to put piles in, the second to drop the completed platform sections into position, so it could well happen really quickly once the money has been found from down the back of the sofa.

 

As for the Anglia service, the rumour that I've heard (and it is just that) is that we will loose the through Liverpool Street service. Although I've also heard that we will keep it, so maybe a small fleet of 379's will remain for this 'branch' service? (maybe a fleet of about 12 units for the three trains in the evening peak, running 12 car to Cambridge and then splitting to run 4 or 8 to Lynn.

 

One thing that hasn't been looked at as far as I can see, is where all these 8 car units are going to stable overnight. Lynn is full as it stands, there are no spare carriage sidings there, unless some are laid either along the Middleton branch or at Extons Road, although what condition the windows would be in in the morning is anyones guess...

 

Andy G

[Zomboid]

The 5 and 10 car suburban trains are marked as being for West Anglia services, so I guess it would be those that go to KL, if any do

[Fenman]

The 5 and 10 car suburban trains are marked as being for West Anglia services, so I guess it would be those that go to KL, if any do

I suppose that using those trains - designed for very short-run, crush-loaded services - would fit with the 700s serving Cambridge. But it would seem a completely mad thing to do (and hence my suggestion that it might end up being a DEMU, those being the only 4-car long-ish-haul units).

 

Paul

[Zomboid]

Well there won't be much in the way of inner suburban trains in the franchise, those are all Crossrail or Overground. I imagine these suburban trains will be more of an outer suburban design, so more seats and less standing.

[stewartingram]

The Fen line has been having OHL works for over two years now, mainly to do with replacing life expired stanchions  (Some have become very banana shaped in 20 years, the rest are just at funny angles to the trackbed, so new piled bases are being provided to replace the mass concrete ones) although transformers are being replaced too.

 

With regards to 8 car-ing the services, I am told that SDO cannot be introduced on lines that didn't have it before a certain date (I find that hard to believe, but the only time that 8 car trains have called here at Littleport, the rear set has been locked out of use). The platforms at LTP and Maggy Road Watlington are to be increased in length to at least 8 car, which involves removal of a foot crossing in one location, and the moving of a signal at another. Last I heard was that the project was at Grip 2 stage. I'm told that the platforms can be lengthened in two overnight weekend possessions, the first to put piles in, the second to drop the completed platform sections into position, so it could well happen really quickly once the money has been found from down the back of the sofa.

 

As for the Anglia service, the rumour that I've heard (and it is just that) is that we will loose the through Liverpool Street service. Although I've also heard that we will keep it, so maybe a small fleet of 379's will remain for this 'branch' service? (maybe a fleet of about 12 units for the three trains in the evening peak, running 12 car to Cambridge and then splitting to run 4 or 8 to Lynn.

 

One thing that hasn't been looked at as far as I can see, is where all these 8 car units are going to stable overnight. Lynn is full as it stands, there are no spare carriage sidings there, unless some are laid either along the Middleton branch or at Extons Road, although what condition the windows would be in in the morning is anyones guess...

 

Andy G

 

Just to prove it can be done (or at least we used to be able to!)

 

 

A nine coach train arrives at Littleport, a little later than "my" era of green loco, maroon mk1 (including a buffet car), but probably still the same makeup in drab blue livery.

 

And a view at Cambridge after things started to drift downhill, but illustrating the length of the train. The original consist of a brake at either end and buffet in the middle has changed in the mk2 era, but look at the length of the train.

 

 

Much as I like the 365s, they don't compare with n InterCity train. And look what we have to look forward to....

 

Stewart

[pete_mcfarlane]

06_37_0012_Cambridge.jpg

 

Much as I like the 365s, they don't compare with n InterCity train. And look what we have to look forward to....

 

Stewart

It could have ended up a lot worse - you could have ended up with the production versions of that class 140!

[uax6]

I well remember the loco hauled period down here, we didn't have a car, and used the train for all holidays. Sadly it was the 47 and Mk2 era, although I remember the treat of having a full cooked breakfast one holiday, when we had to leave on the first off Lynn. I think my Dad still has the empty Frank Cooper/BR marmalade jars!

Then one day we were on a day out and discovered a Mk1 with compartments at the stops end at Lynn, we all jumped at the chance of a compartment! It must have been around the time of the Liverpool Street rebuild and associated works as I can remember getting out of it at Finsbury park, mainly because it was off the end of the platform, and a friend of Dad left his coat in the compartment and had to climb back in to get it! 

 

Why can't we have trains like that now? I'm sure even more people would use them if they were actually comfortable, and you felt like you were getting something nice for your money. I long for the old Mk2 A and B's that we used to have....

 

Andy G

[Christopher125]

I can't see much sense in mainline trains calling at Old Oak - transfer there to/from Crossrail won't be much easier than at Paddington; it will be irrelevant for passengers travelling to/from LHR; and really there won't necessarily be much advantage for many journeys in interchange with HS2.

 

HS2 won't have a Heathrow branch so it will be far from irrelevant when it comes to connecting those destinations with Heathrow and the wider Thames Valley. While the benefit of the HS2 interchange will diminish with distance, Old Oak Common will also allow interchange with London Overground and offer an alternative for Crossrail, but perhaps more significantly the area is set to become a destination in itself.

 

With a pair of platforms each for Up and Down lines there shouldn't be a capacity issue if all services stop during the peaks.

[The Stationmaster]

HS2 won't have a Heathrow branch so it will be far from irrelevant when it comes to connecting those destinations with Heathrow and the wider Thames Valley. While the benefit of the HS2 interchange will diminish with distance, Old Oak Common will also allow interchange with London Overground and offer an alternative for Crossrail, but perhaps more significantly the area is set to become a destination in itself.

 

With a pair of platforms each for Up and Down lines there shouldn't be a capacity issue if all services stop during the peaks.

 

Connection off HS2 to the Thames Valley would only need Relief Line platforms.  But what demand is there likely to be for HS 2 via OOC when the Thames Valley will continue to have direct services to the Midlands and north from Reading and Oxford?  I can't see anyone travelling from Maidenhead or westwards to join at train to Birmingham, or indeed most other places served by HS2, at OCC when they can do so (at a lower fare) via Reading.

 

I'm not entirely sure how the area around OOC will become a destination in itself - public access from there to the main centres of employment within a reasonable distance is as near non-existent as makes no difference and in a number of cases is already available via Ealing Broadway (where past experiments with stopping longer a few distance services turned out to be a dismal failure) and Ealing Broadway is an excellent transport hub for access to numerous areas with far more 'bus andUndergrounD services than OOC is ever likely to command.

 

As far as line capacity is concerned on the Mains stopping trains at OOC will inevitably reduce capacity - especially if every train stops there and extend journey times for people travelling to Paddington (which will continue to offer UndergrounD connections which are not available at OOC and never will be (unless the H&C is extended there and some sort of outer Circle is recreated.  The plain fact of basic timetabling is that if you introduce stops into trains which would otherwise be running at speed, especially if they are accelerating you will slow them down and increase they time during which they occupy particular signal sections (even if they are moving block section) and that will happen irrespective of the accelerative powers of a train  (unless of course it can go from a standstill to 90mph in zero seconds).  Train A stops at a place, train B which is less than 3 minutes behind it (24tph remember) immediately encounters adverse signals so slows before it too makes a stop, and that effect snowballs with every successive train - very basic operational commonsense indicates that and once you've seen it happen, even on longer headways, you know that is the case.  You can of course put in more signal sections (or the equivalent thereof) but that will of course reduce train speeds = extended journey times.   In the past a track circuit failure on the Mains during the peak, with trains on roughly a 3 minute (or slightly less) headway and eventually you had no choice but to take out a train or two in order to keep the rest moving.

 

But then I'm only a retired railway operator and train planner so what the heck am I likely to know about railway working and timetabling?

[phil-b259]

Connection off HS2 to the Thames Valley would only need Relief Line platforms.  But what demand is there likely to be for HS 2 via OOC when the Thames Valley will continue to have direct services to the Midlands and north from Reading and Oxford?  I can't see anyone travelling from Maidenhead or westwards to join at train to Birmingham, or indeed most other places served by HS2, at OCC when they can do so (at a lower fare) via Reading.

 

I'm not entirely sure how the area around OOC will become a destination in itself - public access from there to the main centres of employment within a reasonable distance is as near non-existent as makes no difference and in a number of cases is already available via Ealing Broadway (where past experiments with stopping longer a few distance services turned out to be a dismal failure) and Ealing Broadway is an excellent transport hub for access to numerous areas with far more 'bus andUndergrounD services than OOC is ever likely to command.

 

As far as line capacity is concerned on the Mains stopping trains at OOC will inevitably reduce capacity - especially if every train stops there and extend journey times for people travelling to Paddington (which will continue to offer UndergrounD connections which are not available at OOC and never will be (unless the H&C is extended there and some sort of outer Circle is recreated.  The plain fact of basic timetabling is that if you introduce stops into trains which would otherwise be running at speed, especially if they are accelerating you will slow them down and increase they time during which they occupy particular signal sections (even if they are moving block section) and that will happen irrespective of the accelerative powers of a train  (unless of course it can go from a standstill to 90mph in zero seconds).  Train A stops at a place, train B which is less than 3 minutes behind it (24tph remember) immediately encounters adverse signals so slows before it too makes a stop, and that effect snowballs with every successive train - very basic operational commonsense indicates that and once you've seen it happen, even on longer headways, you know that is the case.  You can of course put in more signal sections (or the equivalent thereof) but that will of course reduce train speeds = extended journey times.   In the past a track circuit failure on the Mains during the peak, with trains on roughly a 3 minute (or slightly less) headway and eventually you had no choice but to take out a train or two in order to keep the rest moving.

 

But then I'm only a retired railway operator and train planner so what the heck am I likely to know about railway working and timetabling?

I don't think anyone on here is doubting your compitance to comment on such matters, your many years of railway service gives you a valuable insight into things others may consider to be 'simple'

 

However the GLA do have ambitious plans for the whole Old Oak area - with several discussion documents / consultations having been doing the rounds in recent years (all of which assume the various train depots in the area get relocated to unspecified locations (no doubt outside London if the GLA can manage it) and lots of redevelopment. Thus in future years it may - note that is not a 'will' be advantageous to make provision to stop long distance services there. Railway history is littered with examples of things been dismissed as 'not worth it' only to need expensive remedial work later when circumstances change.

 

Other potential uses for platforms on the mains might be during service disruption (turning selected trains there rather than Paddington) or facilitate engineering work (which is precisely why NR have kept fast line platforms at places like Purley Oaks and Norbury on the BML.

 

London Overground connectivity is also something not to be ignored given the high passenger volumes it carries, while there are no garuntees that interchanging passengers will be signifficant enough to warrant calls by longer distance services, as highlighted above there is no harm in providing passive provision when it comes to Old Oak station itself.

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think anyone on here is doubting your compitance to comment on such matters, your many years of railway service gives you a valuable insight into things others may consider to be 'simple'

 

However the GLA do have ambitious plans for the whole Old Oak area - with several discussion documents / consultations having been doing the rounds in recent years (all of which assume the various train depots in the area get relocated to unspecified locations (no doubt outside London if the GLA can manage it) and lots of redevelopment. Thus in future years it may - note that is not a 'will' be advantageous to make provision to stop long distance services there. Railway history is littered with examples of things been dismissed as 'not worth it' only to need expensive remedial work later when circumstances change.

 

Other potential uses for platforms on the mains might be during service disruption (turning selected trains there rather than Paddington) or facilitate engineering work (which is precisely why NR have kept fast line platforms at places like Purley Oaks and Norbury on the BML.

 

London Overground connectivity is also something not to be ignored given the high passenger volumes it carries, while there are no garuntees that interchanging passengers will be signifficant enough to warrant calls by longer distance services, as highlighted above there is no harm in providing passive provision when it comes to Old Oak station itself.

 

I don't argue one bit with passive provision Phil - makes a lot of sense of course as various examples on the GWML where Main Lime platforms either don't exist or have been removed only go to prove.  But what I do question is the nonsensical idea of stopping GWR long distance trains there.  Like many things emerging on London's transport network I get the impression that the main idea is to stop people using them by making them as inaccessible as possible - witness the new H&C access at Paddington

 

Connection with various Overground routes is a nice idea but the OOC platforms will be quite a way from either of the routes which cross it and access to either will involve a very long walk.  Creating a  station on the West London Line would probably not be possible in any case as the gradient is too steep south of the GWML.  The most likely station site would probably be for platform serving the WLL on Mitre Bridge Curve where one could possibly be fitted in without demolishing business premises just short of Willesden HL Jcn, there would also possibly be space there for platforms on the Kew Curve leg of the junction thus also providing a station on the North London Line - although both would only a  few hundred yards from Willesden Jcn of course.  A possible alternative to the latter - although it might involve some residential demolition - would be alongside Old Oak Lane south of the connection into South West Sdgs and north of Acton Wells Jcns.  There is insufficient space, only 8 chains, between the two Acton Wells Jcn the various underbridges leaving only a possible site south of the GWML but again likely to involve demolition of modern industrial premises and possibly more.  But all of these potential sites are several hundred yards from the proposed OOC station and would involve very expensive connecting footways requiring bridge works - mind you those costs would be a chicken feed when put into the numbers being spoken about for HS2.  Incidentally I don't know to what extent things have changed but many of the roads and connecting footpaths in that area were well known for mugging attacks at one time.

 

Incidentally as far as the HEX depot is concerned the site I have heard mentioned is 12 miles away although I've no doubt TfL would be quite happy to see the end of HEX in order to get a monopoly of railborne access to LHR.  It is unclear where GWR facilities would go although obviously they will probably not need to be so extensive if Class 800 stabling is concentrated on the Hitachi depot.

[phil-b259]

 

Connection with various Overground routes is a nice idea but the OOC platforms will be quite a way from either of the routes which cross it and access to either will involve a very long walk.  Creating a  station on the West London Line would probably not be possible in any case as the gradient is too steep south of the GWML.  The most likely station site would probably be for platform serving the WLL on Mitre Bridge Curve where one could possibly be fitted in without demolishing business premises just short of Willesden HL Jcn, there would also possibly be space there for platforms on the Kew Curve leg of the junction thus also providing a station on the North London Line - although both would only a  few hundred yards from Willesden Jcn of course.  A possible alternative to the latter - although it might involve some residential demolition - would be alongside Old Oak Lane south of the connection into South West Sdgs and north of Acton Wells Jcns.  There is insufficient space, only 8 chains, between the two Acton Wells Jcn the various underbridges leaving only a possible site south of the GWML but again likely to involve demolition of modern industrial premises and possibly more.  But all of these potential sites are several hundred yards from the proposed OOC station and would involve very expensive connecting footways requiring bridge works - mind you those costs would be a chicken feed when put into the numbers being spoken about for HS2.  Incidentally I don't know to what extent things have changed but many of the roads and connecting footpaths in that area were well known for mugging attacks at one time.

 

Incidentally as far as the HEX depot is concerned the site I have heard mentioned is 12 miles away although I've no doubt TfL would be quite happy to see the end of HEX in order to get a monopoly of railborne access to LHR.  It is unclear where GWR facilities would go although obviously they will probably not need to be so extensive if Class 800 stabling is concentrated on the Hitachi depot.

 

I don't know if you have seen TfLs consultation last year on the issue? It would be interesting to know your thoughts.

 

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/results/overground-at-old-oak-consultation-analysis-report_final.pdf

 

More information on the GLAs ambitions for the Old Oak area here:-

 

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/general/old-oak-mayors-development-corporation

https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/old-oak-and-park-royal-development-corporation-opdc

 

Notice the lack of railway depots of ANY type (HEX, Hitachi, Crossrail - though I guess that could be put  underground like the Central one at White City) and LOTS of trendy tower blocks in this image :- https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/old-oak-and-park-royal-development-corporation-opdc/land-opdc-area-2 and in the video on this page https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/old-oak-and-park-royal-development-corporation-opdc/about-opdc-0

[The Stationmaster]

I don't know if you have seen TfLs consultation last year on the issue? It would be interesting to know your thoughts.

 

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/results/overground-at-old-oak-consultation-analysis-report_final.pdf

 

More information on the GLAs ambitions for the Old Oak area here:-

 

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/general/old-oak-mayors-development-corporation

https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/old-oak-and-park-royal-development-corporation-opdc

 

Notice the lack of railway depots of ANY type (HEX, Hitachi, Crossrail - though I guess that could be put  underground like the Central one at White City) and LOTS of trendy tower blocks in this image :- https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/old-oak-and-park-royal-development-corporation-opdc/land-opdc-area-2 and in the video on this page https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/organisations-we-work/old-oak-and-park-royal-development-corporation-opdc/about-opdc-0

 

Option C is probably the most realistic but it has its problems - especially when  you look at what is shown on the block diagrams.  The Old Oak Lane station is relatively straightforward although it would require the line from Acton Wells Jcn to South West Sdgs to be either singled or slewed (probably with some demolitions beyond the north western boundary in order to accommodate the slew); the route is used regularly by freight traffic to/from the WLL.  But the block diagram is nonsensical at its southern end as that takes it straight through the northern junction at Acton Wells, so it very definitely cannot extend as far south as that block diagram suggests and thus I think its north east end will have to be much further north.  There is about 20 chains clear north of that junction at Acton Wells  from there to the site of Old Oak Jcn which ought to be ample if the slew can be achieved on the SW Sdgs route;  the green pedestrian route on the block diagram would in fact access almost the extreme south west end of the platforms of the NLL station.

 

The Hythe Road station is on the opposite side of Salter Road from the site I mentioned and is in fact narrower than the site I had in mind although whichever is chosen will get involved with signal overlaps which could be awkward for timetabling purposes with frequent services on the Clapham route.  But it's an awful long way from the interchange station linking to it will not be cheap as it will have to bridge the neck of the Crossrail depot (and any other remaining depot line), rise to not only get up to the level of the canal but then rise even more to cross it then descend to station platform level have crossed Hythe Road as well.  Assuming one is walking it won't just be a long way but it will involve quite a climb if you're heading towards Hythe Road - unless it's fully covered it is not going to be attractive on a rainy day and it could be more akin to the Cresta Run heading south during times of snow and ice. 

 

Incidentally I'm not sure if you're aware but FGW objected to the proposed Old Oak station on HS2 as it would adversely affect their depot, presumably HEX behaved similarly?

[phil-b259]

Option C is probably the most realistic but it has its problems - especially when  you look at what is shown on the block diagrams.  The Old Oak Lane station is relatively straightforward although it would require the line from Acton Wells Jcn to South West Sdgs to be either singled or slewed (probably with some demolitions beyond the north western boundary in order to accommodate the slew); the route is used regularly by freight traffic to/from the WLL.  But the block diagram is nonsensical at its southern end as that takes it straight through the northern junction at Acton Wells, so it very definitely cannot extend as far south as that block diagram suggests and thus I think its north east end will have to be much further north.  There is about 20 chains clear north of that junction at Acton Wells  from there to the site of Old Oak Jcn which ought to be ample if the slew can be achieved on the SW Sdgs route;  the green pedestrian route on the block diagram would in fact access almost the extreme south west end of the platforms of the NLL station.

 

The Hythe Road station is on the opposite side of Salter Road from the site I mentioned and is in fact narrower than the site I had in mind although whichever is chosen will get involved with signal overlaps which could be awkward for timetabling purposes with frequent services on the Clapham route.  But it's an awful long way from the interchange station linking to it will not be cheap as it will have to bridge the neck of the Crossrail depot (and any other remaining depot line), rise to not only get up to the level of the canal but then rise even more to cross it then descend to station platform level have crossed Hythe Road as well.  Assuming one is walking it won't just be a long way but it will involve quite a climb if you're heading towards Hythe Road - unless it's fully covered it is not going to be attractive on a rainy day and it could be more akin to the Cresta Run heading south during times of snow and ice. 

 

Incidentally I'm not sure if you're aware but FGW objected to the proposed Old Oak station on HS2 as it would adversely affect their depot, presumably HEX behaved similarly?

 

Hmm, doesn't sound as convenient as TfL are making out - but they did rule out some other more expensive (but better for inter station transfer early on). These articles gives some details:-

 

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/user_uploads/options-assessment-report-v1.0.pdf

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/old-oak-common-consultations-galore/

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/old-oak-common-part-2/

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/old-oak-part-3/

 

The other thing is maybe TfL are fully aware of the shortcomings - but plan them to be resolved somehow in the GLAs 'Masterplan' which goes on about 'green grids' etc (and loks like it wants to flatten everything in the area - move roads, etc in its promotional bumf. While I am naturally sceptical of Architectural 'visions', in this case they could potentially be of help here - again your thoughts, as you know the area well would be interesting.

 

As regards FGW, etc objecting - I was aware of that but thought it was more to do with phasing (i.e. they wouldn't be able to vacate it when HS2 wanted them to due to the need to keep the HSTs in service) rather than anything fundamental.

 

Though now I think about it, wasn't there something about needing better access to the high numbered platforms at Paddington from North Pole?

[caradoc]

If an interchange station were built at Old Oak Common, would the future operator of Great Western route long-distance services, whoever that may be, really be prepared to stop their trains only 3 miles from Paddington, given the time and capacity penalties this would incur ? Parallels on the other long distance routes from London would suggest not; No long distance trains whatsoever call at Finsbury Park or West Hampstead, for example, which both have a better range of connecting routes than Old Oak Common could achieve. Neither, AFAIK, have there been any serious proposals to re-instate the WCML platforms at Willesden Jc.  

[phil-b259]

If an interchange station were built at Old Oak Common, would the future operator of Great Western route long-distance services, whoever that may be, really be prepared to stop their trains only 3 miles from Paddington, given the time and capacity penalties this would incur ? Parallels on the other long distance routes from London would suggest not; No long distance trains whatsoever call at Finsbury Park or West Hampstead, for example, which both have a better range of connecting routes than Old Oak Common could achieve. Neither, AFAIK, have there been any serious proposals to re-instate the WCML platforms at Willesden Jc.  

 

Indeed - but as highlighted in my links the GLA / London Mayor / DfT have other ideas - most of which are probably due to a desire to 'talk up' the sites 'connectivity' so they can get developers wanting to build all those fancy tower blocks shown in the 'Masterplan'

 

Those in charge of actually running services or building the transport infrastructure (NR, HS2, GWR, Hitachi, etc) may have other ideas.....(particularly if it imposes extra costs - note how some Overground station sites were rejected due to the 'impact' on HS2 construction costs and the potential for project drift*)

 

 

*much like this thread - which should be about the class 700s

 

[i plead guilty on that count]

[Fenman]

Hmm, doesn't sound as convenient as TfL are making out - but they did rule out some other more expensive (but better for inter station transfer early on). These articles gives some details ...

It struck me that those OOC/ OG options were probably drawn-up by the same person who designed the "interchange" between the Thameslink platforms at St Pancras and the Underground platforms at KX-St Pancras. A very unpleasant trek if you have bags or baby buggies or a mobility issue.

 

In the days of Concorde, BA complained bitterly about the circuitous route BAA insisted their passengers should take from the drop-off point outside the terminal to the dedicated departure lounge: BAA insisted all those high-net worth passengers should be made to walk past dozens and dozens of retail opportunities, rather than take a short, direct route.

 

The same "thinking" may have infected St Pancras TL, but it seems unlikely for OOC-OG connections. Just saddling generations to come with a lousy interchange.

 

Paul