On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:38:23 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On Apr 15, 2:42*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:51:00 +0100, Tom Anderson


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

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.

Presumably, because platforms half the width of the existing platform,
which is what there'd be space for, wouldn't be allowed?

Probably the best you could manage is something like this:

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

Ooh, i like that. You could add another island further to the left for the
Chiltern lines!


There is possibly more room available at West Hampstead than is
apparent at first sight.

That is good to know!

The GC lines used to have platforms, the
odd-looking doorway at the back of one of the shops is the access from
what was the station building so that side might not need a lot
alteration of premises in Broadhurst Gardens to put in a new platform
(but not necessarily so for the gap between the Up GC and the Down
Met).

Do you know the opening and closure dates for the GC platforms at West
Hampstead? I ask, because IIRC part of the GC's agreement with the
Met. was to have no stations south of Harrow.

Actually I'm now getting a nagging doubt that the platforms were GC
rather than being the original Met platforms before the GC line was
built. IIRC it was mentioned in a copy of the LURS "Underground"
journal in the last couple of years. AFAIR the building concerned is
the one in Broadhurst Gardens that used to be Radio Shack (the one
that stopped Tandy trading under that name in the UK).

On the other side, if nothing new has been built in the last few
years then there is room for expansion to the north without knocking
down too much. As for the station building it is IIRC one of a number
built to a similar design so not desperately in need of preservation
but past modernisation elsewhere seems to have been achieved without
too much alteration to the outward appearance anyway. If the road
bridge is still as inadequate WRT to weight-carrying as it was a few
years ago then this would also be an opportunity/excuse to replace it
and increase the available width of the railway formation below.

Question: If Met. trains were to commence stopping at new West
Hampstead platforms, should they cease to call at Finchley Road?

If the numbers of people entering/departing the Met. at Finchley Road
are comparatively small (rather than changing trains) then that would
seem to be a possibility. Other passenger flows to be considered would
be e.g. those changing to/from bus services.

One thing against West Hampstead becoming an interchange is the local
congestion in West End Lane (partly due to the bridges but also due to
a lack of bus bays on the road) that affects bus services which could
be expected to carry more passengers even if Finchley Road did not
cease to be the local interchange. This then leads on to a possible
need not just to deal with the bridge at the LU station but also the
bridge at the NLL station and at the same time widen them and
everything in between them.

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 Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:38:23 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

Question: If Met. trains were to commence stopping at new West
Hampstead platforms, should they cease to call at Finchley Road?

If the numbers of people entering/departing the Met. at Finchley Road
are comparatively small (rather than changing trains) then that would
seem to be a possibility. Other passenger flows to be considered would
be e.g. those changing to/from bus services.

I think this not insubstantial - there are six bus routes serving Finchley
Road, i believe. There are three at West Hampstead, and the overlap with
Finchley Road's routes is minimal, so unless many routes were rearranged,
the journeys possible via Finchley Road would be lost. Finchley Road also
has the hugemongous O2 leisure/shopping centre (and a big Homebase), and
is generally rather more of a high street than West Hampstead.

Anyway, those entry/exit numbers in full (in MPax/yr):

Finchley Road 8.836
West Hampstead 6.892

I don't think that includes Met/Jub interchange at FR; it certainly does
include both Met and Jub passengers coming in and out there, and it's
impossible to know how many there are of each. Still, i'm surprised FR is
only two million higher than WH.

tom

--
william gibson said that the future has already happened, it just isn't
evenly distributed. he was talking specifically about finsbury park. --
andy

On 16 Apr, 14:24, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:38:23 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

Question: If Met. trains were to commence stopping at new West
Hampstead platforms, should they cease to call at Finchley Road?

If the numbers of people entering/departing the Met. at Finchley Road
are comparatively small (rather than changing trains) then that would
seem to be a possibility. Other passenger flows to be considered would
be e.g. those changing to/from bus services.

I think this not insubstantial - there are six bus routes serving Finchley
Road, i believe. There are three at West Hampstead, and the overlap with
Finchley Road's routes is minimal, so unless many routes were rearranged,
the journeys possible via Finchley Road would be lost. Finchley Road also
has the hugemongous O2 leisure/shopping centre (and a big Homebase), and
is generally rather more of a high street than West Hampstead.


I agree with all of that - in fact I'd say that Finchley Road is a
'proper' high street in the conventional understanding (albeit one
that also unfortunately serves as the main artery for traffic to/from
the M1) whilst West End Lane (outside West Hampstead station) is not.


Anyway, those entry/exit numbers in full (in MPax/yr):

Finchley Road 8.836
West Hampstead 6.892

I don't think that includes Met/Jub interchange at FR; it certainly does
include both Met and Jub passengers coming in and out there, and it's
impossible to know how many there are of each. Still, i'm surprised FR is
only two million higher than WH.


I'm a bit surprised by that - but bear in mind that whilst the numbers
at Finchley Road do not take into account Met/Jubbly interchange, at
West Hampstead the entry/exit figure include all of those who are
transferring from the Jubilee line to Thameslink and to the North
London Line (and vice versa), given that both of these are out-of-
station interchanges. And there's a good number of people who indeed
do just that (though I've no idea of an actual number or estimate).

On Apr 15, 5:44*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
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

Thank you for your very helpful and informative post "U".

The news about the Thameslink station is welcome. Although I regret
that this opportunity to build a more comprehensive interchange is
being lost.

One would have preferred platforms on the Met, and GC lines and a
subterranean link across the entire complex. Perhaps some of the cost
could be recovered by selling, or renting, the airspace above the Met.
Jub. & Chiltern, and the Midland, & Thameslink platforms.

My guess is that such an interchange would have moderate impact on the
street traffic, but would open up any number of interchange
possibilities. One could do Aylesbury to Brighton with one change, or
High Wycombe to Shoreditch with one change.

Adrian

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 16 Apr, 14:24, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:38:23 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

Question: If Met. trains were to commence stopping at new West
Hampstead platforms, should they cease to call at Finchley Road?

If the numbers of people entering/departing the Met. at Finchley Road
are comparatively small (rather than changing trains) then that would
seem to be a possibility. Other passenger flows to be considered would
be e.g. those changing to/from bus services.

Anyway, those entry/exit numbers in full (in MPax/yr):

Finchley Road 8.836
West Hampstead 6.892

I don't think that includes Met/Jub interchange at FR; it certainly
does include both Met and Jub passengers coming in and out there, and
it's impossible to know how many there are of each. Still, i'm
surprised FR is only two million higher than WH.

I'm a bit surprised by that - but bear in mind that whilst the numbers
at Finchley Road do not take into account Met/Jubbly interchange, at
West Hampstead the entry/exit figure include all of those who are
transferring from the Jubilee line to Thameslink and to the North London
Line (and vice versa), given that both of these are out-of- station
interchanges. And there's a good number of people who indeed do just
that (though I've no idea of an actual number or estimate).

Further numbers:

West Hampstead NLL 0.680
West Hampstead Thameslink 0.594

If every single passenger getting on or coming off the NR trains went via
the tube station, which i very strongly doubt, that's 1.274 MPax/yr of
interchange traffic, or 5.618 of non-interchange.

tom

--
Taking care of business

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, 1506 wrote:

One would have preferred platforms on the Met, and GC lines and a
subterranean link across the entire complex. Perhaps some of the cost
could be recovered by selling, or renting, the airspace above the Met.
Jub. & Chiltern, and the Midland, & Thameslink platforms.

My guess is that such an interchange would have moderate impact on the
street traffic, but would open up any number of interchange
possibilities. One could do Aylesbury to Brighton with one change, or
High Wycombe to Shoreditch with one change.

Depending on stopping patterns. Do Thameslinks which run to Brighton stop
at West Hampstead? Would fast Aylesbury Chilterns stop at West Hampstead,
or would it only be the stoppers? High Wycombe to Shoreditch with one
change would require ELL trains to be running through as far as West
Hampstead, which is not currently the plan (AIUI).

Journeys like this would be brilliant, and would make a lot of sense to
arrang stopping patterns so that they were possible, but it would go
against the grain of current planning, which is already deleting
fast-train stops from Watford Junction (although they have been added at
Stratford in recent years, so YMMV).

tom

--
Taking care of business

On 16 Apr, 22:51, Tom Anderson wrote:
Depending on stopping patterns. Do Thameslinks which run to Brighton stop
at West Hampstead?

Not as part of the standard pattern, where they run non-stop from St
Pancras to St Albans.

Would fast Aylesbury Chilterns stop at West Hampstead,
or would it only be the stoppers?

I think there's mostly only one stopping pattern on that line, which
is at all stops they serve.

High Wycombe to Shoreditch with one
change would require ELL trains to be running through as far as West
Hampstead, which is not currently the plan (AIUI).

Yep. Its dedicated tracks will end at H&I with only a single track
connection beyond to the westbound NLL for stock transfers, making it
operationally impossible to run any sort of service.

Journeys like this would be brilliant, and would make a lot of sense to
arrang stopping patterns so that they were possible, but it would go
against the grain of current planning, which is already deleting
fast-train stops from Watford Junction (although they have been added at
Stratford in recent years, so YMMV).

I think the most recent RUS recommended stopping every train at
Stratford.

U

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

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 16 Apr, 22:51, Tom Anderson wrote:

Would fast Aylesbury Chilterns stop at West Hampstead,
or would it only be the stoppers?

I think there's mostly only one stopping pattern on that line, which
is at all stops they serve.

Although most trains are all stations to Rickmansworth, then
Harrow-on-the-Hill and London Marylebone there are some peak trains fast
from Great Missenden or Amersham to Marylebone, while some other peak trains
omit Rickmansworth (apparently for platform length reasons). However, even
if West Hampstead acquired platforms on the Met and Chiltern lines I can't
see much point in stopping Chiltern Met Line trains there, as passengers
from beyond Amersham would be able to change at Harrow-o-t-H without losing
much time, and the time taken by a West Hampstead stop would be a
disadvantage for Marylebone passengers. There might be some point in
selected Joint Line trains calling at WH.

Peter

Tom Anderson wrote:

I think this not insubstantial - there are six bus routes serving
Finchley Road, i believe.

They also serve Swiss Cottage, which has disused Met platforms, and
entrances at northbound and southbound bus stops.

There are three at West Hampstead, and the
overlap with Finchley Road's routes is minimal, so unless many routes
were rearranged, the journeys possible via Finchley Road would be
lost. Finchley Road also has the hugemongous O2 leisure/shopping
centre (and a big Homebase),

The Homebase is nearer to West Hampstead than to Finchley Rd.

and is generally rather more of a high
street than West Hampstead.

I don't agree. Finchley Road is all poundstretchers and a strip club,
whereas West Hampstead is bars and restaurants. West Hampstead certainly has
more pedestrians than Finchley Rd at night, and possibly in the day too.