Welcome to Reconnections’ Friday Reads.
-
- • London’s commuter towns mapped & rated (MappingLondon)
- • The strange world of British Rail mathematics (CityMetric)
- • Buried Brunel structure halts road scheme (BBC)
- • DC Metro station design as important as service (Washingtonian)
- • San Francisco’s sidewalk public space battles (CityLab)
- • SF Caltrain’s $2 billion electrification project (StreetsBlog)
- • Tokyo stationary sleeper train hostel (Travel+Leisure)
- • Melbourne transport facets & plans (UITP)
- • Former railway stations in new uses (Mother Nature Network)
Check out our most popular articles:
And some of our other sections:
If you have something you feel we should read or include in a future list, email us at [email protected].
Reconnections is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Then help us to do more!
Re: The strange world of British Rail mathematics (CityMetric)
I note that the Crossrail/Elizabeth Line platfoms seems to be lettered “A” eastbound and “B” westbound.
The article also doesn’t seem to notice there are non-standard platforms used that aren’t single letters, digits or digits plus letters.
For example there’s “BAY” at Hayes and Harlington station, and “RL” at Acton Main Line.
Twickenham is the only station I can think of in England that doesn’t have a platform 1 or 2, only 3, 4 and 5.
It’s odd that it singularly fails to mention the reason the numbering isn’t changed: that they are tied to the signalling system. Bit of a fail surely?
@herned – it does say that there are signalling issues.
There are many instances of stations with no platfom 1 (Clapham Junction, until quite recently), but until the recent resignalling, Lincoln Central’s lowest-numbered platform, like Twickenham’s, was no 3 – in both cases because two bay platforms had been taken out of service at some time in the past.
The article doesn’t mention that, until the 1970s, Kings Cross had no platform 3 or platform 9 (unless that was the Hogwarts Express platform at the time – note Molly Weasley’s uncertainty over the (new?) platform number). Platform 3 was originally a bay, removed when platform 2 was widened. There was an extra track (but no platform) between platforms 8 and 10 (now 7 and 8), which disappeared when (old) platform 8 was widened.
@Timbeau
Oh, so it does. Must learn to read ALL the words before making chippy comments
The “London’s commuter towns” ranking seems to have created a new connection between Leighton Buzzard and Bedford. As a former resident of the, ah, former, this would have been quite useful on occasions!
And Tring seems to have entirely jumped lines, now apparently connected to Marylebone.
Whilst I realise the CityMetric article is just a bit of fun, why does it matter how platforms are numbered? As long as they are unique within a station, and are well sign-posted, the vast majority of people aren’t going to notice the inconsistencies or care.
To add the fun, these sorts of inconsistencies are not limited to the UK – if you have a look at Zurich station, you will find platforms 3-18, 21 & 22, 31-34 and 41-44. It is more obvious why when you look at the layout, but it shows that even to well-organised Swiss aren’t above this sort of thing.
@Alison
There are plenty more
– Brentwood and Rayleigh have jumped ship and are now on C2C, not Anglia.
– On Anglia, Waltham Cross has a direct service to Shenfield and the junction for the Southend is now at Billericay. Ware has swapped places with Hertford, and the branch then continues to Bishops Stortford (which is now longer on the main line) Meanwhile, Cheshunt is on an orbital link between Broxbourne and Potters Bar
Beyond Luton, the Midland Main Line goes to Hitchin, which is bad news for Bedford and Wellingborough (change at Leighton Buzzard (not Bletchley!) as you noted for those stations, but this does at least mean that Hitchin and Arlesey still have a service despite trains from Stevenage now missing Hitchin and only serving the Cambridge branch, although further down the Cambridge branch is Biggleswade , between Baldock and Royston, where there is a link to the GNML at Sandy.
On the Great Western, Appleford and Oxford are on different branches.
On Southern, Banstead is on the Brighton Main Line, Oxted is on the Redhill-Tonbridge line, and Leatherhead has a direct service to Reigate
Timbeau
Yes, well, but City Metric don’t seem to be interested in feedback from their readers, anyway.
[CityMetric doesn’t host comments as it doesn’t have the resources to constantly moderate comments, like this one. Rest of this comment is snipped. LBM]
The commuter towns map has a very selective view of journey times. For example, Northampton has just one train in one direction that is timetabled for the time quoted, whereas somewhere like Milton Keynes has a much more frequent service where some of the trains are faster than the quoted time (in the peak too!)
and some of the season ticket prices are wrong. I guess this is just “a bit of fun”
@JIMBO 24 August 2018 at 18:13
“Whilst I realise the CityMetric article is just a bit of fun, why does it matter how platforms are numbered? As long as they are unique within a station, and are well sign-posted, the vast majority of people aren’t going to notice the inconsistencies or care.”
I’m going to venture that we don’t operate the public transport system for “the vast majority” but intend it to work for everyone, including those people with physical disability (say, blindness) or mental health.
Now I’ve lived at Stratford Station for four years, I’m now totally conversant with the layout. That the high level platforms go Overground: 1/2, Not used: 12, Anglia 11/10a, 10/9, Tfl 8/Central 6, Tfl 5/Central 3, Central 3a, DLR 4a/4b. The low-level ones go Unused 13, Jubilee 14/15, DLR 16, DLR17.
And now it’s obvious to me why the northern subway connects 1, 2, 11, 10a, 9, 8, 6, 5 and 3 together but not to the main entrance neither 4a/4b nor 13-17.
Or that the central subway connects Westfield to 1,2, 11, 10a, 9, 8, 6, 5 and 3, 3a and 17 and the old station.
Or that the southern subway connects Westfield to … 1,/2 then 10/9, 8/6, 5/3 to 13-16.
Did I mention that 4a has a direct connection to 3a/3b? Or that 3a and 3b are signed as “3” in places?
It’s just a little game that the signallers play on the travelling public….!
Just for the record Lowestoft has only platforms 2, 3 & 4 these days.
@Jimbo
I’d argue the difference in Zürich is that the numbering was done in the way it is very deliberately (aside from the missing platforms 1 and 2), rather than being an accident of history/ signalling changes.
For those not familiar with Zürich HB, platforms 3-18 are on the surface, and platforms 21-22, 31-34, and 41-44 are distinct groups of underground platforms, with 21-22 being a terminus of of two S- Bahn lines (interestingly with two different electrification standards,[both overhead, but for one the wire is offset to one side so as not to interfere with the other]) , and the other two sets having a pair of tracks in each direction, both being through lines.
This I believe follows the European ‘convention’ of numbering platforms that don’t fit in with the normal sequence with a number prefix (that is distinct from the number of the largest ‘normal’ platform.
On the subject of zurich, given discussion in the “Beyond Crossrail and Thameslink” article, I thought you might find it interesting to read what happens on Zürich when there is serious disruption.
As I write a total of 9 different tram lines and 1 bus line are diverted, due to a serious fire in front of the HB resulting in the major tram and bus node on the Bahnhofplatz in front of Zürich HB being closed to trams and buses in both directions
The vast majority of tram lines are diverted. Only two out of 16 lines are not affected in some way (12, because its route goes nowhere near the centre, and 2 because its route avoids that side of the HB).
As is normal in such circumstances, the 15 (being by far the shortest line , and it overlapping with several others) is completely suspended, and several other tram lines are sent along its route instead. Aside from this every line is diverted in such a way, that as much of the network outside of the disrupted area is diverted in such a way, that every route is covered as much as possible in some way (as far as reversing loops allow, as trams here are monodirectional). In some cases, this has lead to routes near said loops having a different or better service than usual (I currently have twice as many trams as is normal).
Passengers are informed about any disruption of this sort through the app (the journey planner tends to take it into account almost immediately) , and through visual information on screens in trams and buses (and of the S-Bahn is involved, the trains too). There are also audio announcements broadcast centrally from the control centre approximately every 10-20 minutes, depending on the severity of disruption (presumably to avoid drowning passengers in announcements – these are usually very minimalist here), that can be heard in all trams, buses trains, and the vast majority of their stops (either in the area affected, or where passengers are considered likely to be traveling towards the affected area). DMIs (Dot Matrix Indicators) where present will also have a scrolling message (albeit usually more brief than the audio announcements or visual announcements in trams/buses).
For posterity I have pasted the disruption message below – I haven’t found and English version , but the German version should translate fairly well. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of journeys are still possible, albeit with delays in some cases.
Feuerwehreinsatz beim Hauptbahnhof/Bahnhofbrücke
Die Strecke zwischen Bahnhofplatz/Bahnhofquai und Central ist für den Tram-/Busbetrieb der Linien 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 31, 46 in beiden Richtungen gesperrt.
Die Linie 3 verkehrt ab Central über Limmatquai – Bellevue nach Tiefenbrunnen und zwischen Albisrieden und Löwenplatz. Einstieg Richtung Albisrieden am Löwenplatz oder Sihlpost/HB.
Die Linie 4 verkehrt auf den Strecken Bhf. Tiefenbrunnen – Central – Kunsthaus – Klusplatz und zwischen Bhf. Altstetten Nord – Sihlquai/HB – Stampfenbachplatz – Bucheggplatz.
Die Linie 6 verkehrt auf der Strecke Zoo – ETH/Universitätsspital nach Milchbuck. Fahrgäste nach Zoo bzw. zwischen Hauptbahnhof und ETH/Universitätsspital benützen zwischen Central und ETH-Zentrum die
Polybahn (Linie 24).
Die Linie 7 wird zwischen Central und Bhf. Enge in beiden Richtungen via Rathaus (Limmatquai) – Bellevue – Bürkliplatz – Rentenanstalt umgeleitet.
Die Linie 10 wird ab ETH/Universitätsspital nach Kirche Fluntern umgeleitet. Fahrgäste nach Flughafen bzw. zwischen Hauptbahnhof und ETH/Universitätsspital benützen zwischen Central und ETH-Zentrum
die Polybahn (Linie 24).
Die Linie 11 verkehrt zwischen Schaffhauserplatz und Bellevue in beiden Richtungen via Ottikerstrasse (Weinbergstrasse) – Central – Rathaus (Limmatquai).
Die Linie 13 verkehrt zwischen Albisgütli und Bahnhof Enge sowie auf der Strecke Frankental – Sihlquai/HB – Stampfenbachplatz – Milchbuck – Seebach.
Die Linie 14 verkehrt zwischen Triemli und Löwenplatz sowie auf der Strecke Seebach – Stampfenbachplatz – Sihlquai/HB – Escher- Wyss-Platz nach Frankental. Einstieg Richtung Triemli am Löwenplatz oder Sihlpost/HB.
Die Linie 15 ist eingestellt.
Die Linie 17 bedient nur die Strecke Werdhölzli – Escher-Wyss-Platz.
Die Linie 31 verkehrt nur zwischen Farbhof und Löwenplatz sowie Hegibachplatz – Kienastenwies. Kein Busbetrieb zwischen Hauptbahnhof und Hegibachplatz.
Einstieg Richtung Albisrieden am Löwenplatz oder Sihlpost/HB.
Fahrgäste zwischen Hegibachplatz und Hauptbahnhof benützen die Linie 11 via Central oder die S-Bahn via Stadelhofen.
Fahrgäste zwischen Witikon und Hauptbahnhof benützen die Tramlinie 3 via Central – Klusplatz.
Die Linie 46 verkehrt auf der Strecke Rütihof – Central. Die Haltestelle Bahnhofquai/HB kann nicht bedient werden. Fahrgäste Richtung Rütihof benützen die Haltestelle Central.
Auf den genannten Linien ist mit Unregelmässigkeiten zu rechnen. Auf einzelnen Verbindungen ist mit längeren Reisezeiten zu rechnen. Den Fahrgästen mit Ziel/Abgang in der Nähe eines Stadtbahnhofes empfehlen wir, die S-Bahn zu benützen.
Dauer der Störung: Bis ca. 21 Uhr
Braintist
The Stratford numbering system is historic, of course.
The original Low-Level platforms were 1& 2, & then it went northward across the station, with numbers missing from where there used to be bays between the slow/electric line platforms.
IIRC it wen LL: 1& 2 ( Palace Gates – N Woolwich )
HL S-to-N 3,5,6.8 ( 4& 7 being the long-gone bays )
– gap for the main lines
“really old station” ( Um, err ..) 9, 10 11,12, 13, 14.
The arrival of the Jubilee line, the DLR on the HL side, the removal of the old platform 14 & then the insertion of the terminating overground platforms ( now Nos 1 & 2 ) “confused” matters, shall we say?
Logically, one should re-start afresh, and go round from some suitable start-point in either a clockwise or anti-clockwise manner, but I don’t think that’s going to happen!
There’s a once in a generation opportunity to renumber Kings Cross platforms if desired with the remodelling scheme planned in the next few years. Signalling will be completely replaced along with modifications to numerous downstream information systems. Clearly there’s also a lot of fixed signage to change in the station and printed material for both public and staff.
The Stratford numbering system presumably dates back to the extension of the Central Line in the 1940s. Platfom 4 is not that long-gone. It was used between 1987 and 2007 by the DLR – now replaced by platforms 4a and 4b, on the other side of platform 3, and thus out of sequence.
Platforms 1 and 2 have always been the North London Line, although they are now at a different level to, at right angles to, and on the opposite side of the station to, the original ones.
Timbeau
Yes.
The numbering sequence I gave was as I first saw it in about 1960, when the Norwich expresses could be hauled by either a “Britannia” or an EE type 4 ( D200 series ).
MT
If the sensible opportunity is taken with the KGX resignalling, then the platforms would presumably go from 1 to 12 ( OR possibly 11? ) with 9.75 still where it is now?
Reading the CityMetric article again and it seems to spend a long time discussing a fictional platform made up by an author who got her stations mixed up. The caption for the photo says “The infuriatingly mis-located Platform 9¾ at London King’s Cross” – I wonder how many of the people queuing for a photo opportunity are infuriated by its location. Is the author of the article really saying that the platforms at King’s Cross should be renumbered so that a tourist attraction lines up better with the real platforms?
I was more infuriated by the former location of Platform 9 3/4, leading to queues of tourists clogging the bottleneck entrance to Platforms 9, 10 and 11, from which my train left without me more than once as a result.
@GREG, @JIMBO
The work proposed is as shown in my diagram here:
http://www.townend.me/files/kingscrossremodelling.pdf
Clearly, renumbering to abolish #0 would result in an east to west (or anticlockwise if you think of London as the centre of a clockface) sequence of #1-#11, with the side effect that the Harry Potter set piece would fall in the correct position in that sequence. To be honest I’m fanatically ambivalent about it, although I do find the concept of a platform zero mildly disturbing psychologically, while recognising logically that it is only a label rather than a value!
As a person-involved-with-computers for over 45 years I’m quite happy with numbering from zero, indeed it makes more sense to me! (Though I accept it won’t to everyone.)
Alison
Zero wasn’t “formally” introduced into Euorpean maths until Fibonacci ( I think )
And didn’t Dean Swift try to ridicule the idea … which would have been several centuries later?
@Alison – trouble is that in computer speak, zero follows 9 (for example when naming files); in humanspeak, zero comes before one.
@graham h
Where in computing practice does 0 come after 9? In ASCII, 0 certainly comes before 9 (although 10 also comes before 9 – 1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
@Ronnie MB: Even worse, the punters queueing to have their photo taken sometimes make it hard to reach the Parcel Office!
The location of 9.75 in the film is even more irritating as it lies between 4 and 5!
@Purley Dweller: 4+5 = 9, so nearly there!
It’s magic. That’s why it’s not always to be found in the same place.
I got this the other day** in relation to an FoI request about which TfL stations are signed “keep left” and which “keep right” for a project I’m working on. It’s called “Stratford One Way System PM Peak”
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/Stratford%20PM%20Peak%20One%20Way%202018.pdf
** actually I’ve had it while but it wasn’t in the public domain until it got foied.
@all involved in the Platform 9.75 discussion
I suspect we’ve all been getting the London terminus very wrong – let’s look at the facts:
– We know that this lies between platforms 9 and 10, where there is a wall. This happens at neither King’s Cross nor Euston, nor anything more unusual such as Liverpool Street, Marylebone or Paddington (though would have to query original layout of St Pancras)
– We know that wizarding infrastructure looks rundown and disused to Muggle eyes
Hypothesis:
Platform 9.75 is actually located between Platforms 9 and 10 at Moorgate, on the Northern City Line – where it is far too horrific for any well-meaning author to put in a young adult fictional book…
The Melbourne article is of particular interest for its reference to elimination of level crossings, in a project that makes Network Rail’s efforts look pretty underwhelming. Admittedly, Melbourne has a lot of level crossings and the suburbs are less densely developed than London, but the scale of the work there gives pause for thought. It is also of note that a special authority, with a ring-fenced (large) budget was set up for the job.
The Waterloo to Reading line presents the greatest level crossing problem in the London area, given the number of them and the frequency of the trains. NR has identified level crossing down time as a reason why more trains cannot be run.
If the Melbourne approach was taken, the railway between Putney and Richmond would probably be completely rebuilt. A substantial part of the Cranbourne/Pakenham line in Melbourne is being rebuilt on a viaduct to eliminate a series of level crossings. That would probably be unacceptable in SW London and impossible to achieve without closing the line for an extended period. However, a tunnel from west of Putney to east of Richmond would eliminate four busy crossings and enable a grade-separated junction at Barnes. Of course, it won’t happen, though there is a project to close Feltham level crossing.
A particular entertainment in Melbourne is/was the level crossings across tram routes.
Feltham’s level crossing is unusual in that it crosses a one-way street. Although it is no longer unique as Lincoln’s level crossings have also both become one-way in the past year.
Tunnelling between Barnes and Richmond looks possible, but there would be a problem if the line to Barnes Bridge were to be at a lower level than present. Not only would it have to climb steeply to cross the Thames, but about half way there it has to cross the Beverley Brook. Alternatively, it could stay in tunnel until it has passed under the Thames, but now it’s getting expensive (and requires a fourth subterranean station).
@all involved in the Platform 9.75 discussion
Re: “Hypothesis:
Platform 9.75 is actually located between Platforms 9 and 10 at Moorgate, on the Northern City Line ”
I’m just trying to imagine the Hogwart’s Express (complete with GWR steam locomotive) in the Great Northern & City tunnels…
That really would be magic – but a great idea for a railtour.
“nor anything more unusual such as Liverpool Street, Marylebone or Paddington (though would have to query original layout of St Pancras)”
Until the rebuilding, St Pancras only had seven platforms, and Marylebone has never had more than six. As at Kings Cross, there are tracks between platforms 9 and 10 at both Paddington and Liverpool Street. However, I think platform 10 at the old Liverpool Street was one of the two which extended back under the hotel, amongst lots of mysterious doorways. maybe one of those led to platform 9-and-three-quarters? (This might also explain why the flying car, following the train, was seen over Norfolk).
Re: Feltham Level crossing (Bedfont Lane), these works are now underway, see :-
https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20106/traffic/1619/feltham_town_centre_traffic_and_transport_improvements/1
The snag has been that the road widening on the replacement route impinged on a public park, and took out a row of mature trees. This wasn’t very popular locally.
The astonishing thing about these exchanges is that the advocates of replacing the 4 level crossings on the Mortlake route think that the £3bn or so (probably nearer £5bn these days) for building tunnels and 4 underground stations would *ever* think that that was money well spent. Quite apart from whether there are better things to spend the money on ( a forbidden topic on this site), for that sort of cash, and even at today’s property prices, you could buy up and demolish all the houses that are in the way of overbridges/underpasses – and still have cash to spare. Deeply unpopular of course.
@Graham H: At Mortlake you wouldn’t have to buy too much, just look at all those commercial buildings and the green space on the Western side. You can easily put a road underpass in there…
@SHLR 🙂
@Graham H
Over the past thirty years I must have spent many hours waiting at the level crossing at North Sheen contemplating what might be done – and haven’t come up with an answer yet. The least disruptive (demolishing no houses) would be to divert the line on viaduct in a huge S-bend through Homebase (to the NW of the crossing) and the allotments (to the SE). Remember that the short-lived plan to run Crossrail to Kingston was scuppered by complaints from Richmond residents at the loss of amenity (not actual demolition) the required grade separated junction would have involved. (and that they would lose the District Line)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/new-crossrail-link-revealed-7294385.html. The route would presumably have diverged from the GWML somewhere in the Old Oak Common area, although a tunnel from Paddington to Gunnersbury (via Shepherds Bush) was also suggested
Thus I am not able to “advocate” the replacement of the crossings – just to point out what such a project would involve.
At both Mortlake and North Sheen, the downtime of the barriers could be reduced by staggering the platforms, but if demolition of residential property were to be avoided, even that would only be possible if the line was slewed.
Re: Tunnelling projects to eliminate crossings, the Odakyu line (my old commuter line) in Tokyo is an interesting example. They’d been trying to quadruple the last leg of their line into their Tokyo terminus for decades, but been refused permission/etc. to do so. They eventually (ca. 2015) solved the problem by tunnelling underneath the existing tracks, putting in a double-decker tunnel for the fasts and slows, and then selling off the surface railway land to pay for it all, recouping most of the cost. I think they got some brownie points/subsidies out of it as they also eliminated a bunch of level crossings in the process.
I’m assuming that land price vs. tunnelling cost is still in favour of Tokyo, here, but it’s an interesting parallel to think about.
Re Graham H,
Mortlake Crossings indeed!
There are 4 crossings Sheen Lane (by far the busiest)
White Hart Lane
Vine Road x2 (1 on each line, Road barely 2 cars wide in places)
If you are going to do work on 1 crossing then Sheen Lane (just east of Mortlake station so low train speed some of the time) makes the most sense by far and given the amount of commercial property etc. along the road either side a road under pass might make the most sense and be by far the cheapest solution.
A road underpass on both on Vine Road crossings is also the most sensible solution there rather than doing anything to the railway line. Dubious BCR given traffic levels unless TfL/Richmond want to relieve the South circular /Rocks Lane/ Roehampton Lane junction…
White Hart Lane – in the too difficult to bridge or underpass the road category but might see less traffic if Sheen Lane especially were done.
All the crossings don’t need closing…
@NGH
You’ve missed Manor Road (North Sheen station), which is at least as busy as Sheen Lane (Mortlake station)
@Timbeau: Probable not as busy once Sheen Lane has been done….
@NGH/timbeau/Excalibur – sometimes* “solutions” to problems just aren’t worth it…
^quite often, actually.
@NT2
Platform 9 3/4 is clearlyly in a concealed tunnel, south of the abandoned platform 9 Greathead shield. The Hogwarts Express runs south via Bank and then to Waterloo where it surfaces and heads for the North Pole (the other one).
It all works by using magic crayons. Loading gauge constraints are dealt with using the Knight Bus spell.
Regarding Barnes – Richmond, the best value arrangement might be a simple new bored fast pair without stations to supplement the existing Mortlake line, with a regular interval stopping service remaining on the surface route (say every 10 or 15 minutes). That kind of service pattern would leave the road crossings open for longer between trains which often stay down for more than one train in the same direction today and thus risk overlapping with an opposing direction train, leading to very long road closures. The Vine Lane crossings could be addressed by closure of the Hounslow line vehicular crossing, retaining the Mortlake crossing for the recreation ground and for NR engineering access to the substation. A pedestrian grade separated crossing could be provided instead on the Hounslow line to maintain local connectivity, perhaps by means of a ramped underpass to avoid a large unsightly structure.
I’m not convinced there’s suitable space for a rail tunnel portal at Barnes itself, at least without long term closure of the existing railway for construction, so perhaps its better for fast trains to continue along the Hounslow line over the river bridge, diverge, and then descend back under the Thames via a ramp and portal located in Dukes Meadow, just the other side of the river from Barnes Bridge station. The fast trains would be additionally constrained by stoppers at Barnes Bridge, but should be able to overtake a stopping train on the Mortlake line before Richmond. This should lead to additional usable capacity for limited stop services, to Heathrow, Windsor, and Reading. The Richmond portal would be located alongside the District Line at Homebase, as others have suggested.
For the Staines – Egham area, there’s an opportunity to abolish all the crossings in Egham using the new HSR alignment if the option for a connection to Virginia Water was chosen. and a west facing chord was added to the junction between Windsor Line and the airport access. This would allow all SWR trains to also use the new route through Egham next to the M25. A station in Egham on the new route would be required clearly, but that would be useful for interchange between SWR Reading trains and the airport trains, and the Virginia Water route would also allow direct trains between the airport and Reading without the difficult Staines west curve proposed previously by Airtrack. The new Egham station site, just to the east of the M25 where it crosses Vicarage Road, would still be fairly close to the centre of Egham, being no further from one end of High Street than the existing site is from the other, and the abandoned existing rail alignment could connect the sites and areas beyond with a high quality pedestrian and cycle route that could continue across the Thames into the heart of Staines.
At Virginia Water, the station could be rebuilt with a much gentler curve leading to the Chertsey line. That would provide improved platform stepping distance for trains stopping there and a higher through speed for the airport non- stoppers and would use an undeveloped wooded area where the old west – south curve was.
At Staines, with the existing junction removed, the station could be moved along the Windsor line to the straight track just north of the High Street bridge, where Airtrack once planned to place an additional station. That site would be more easily provided with an additional terminal bay for Elizabeth Line trains from terminal 5 than the current station and would be a little more convenient and ‘visible’ for town centre access.
The old rail alignment might be used alternatively for a local light rail service that could be extended into the airport in line with ideas presented previously by the local authority, but I suspect with the heavy rail improvements a case for light rail as well would be very difficult to demonstrate. Encouraging ‘active travel’ with a wide, high quality corridor, with few traffic conflicts, could also benefit local travel within and between the local towns significantly and would also improve wider access to the heavy rail stations for travel to the airport and elsewhere.
The outcome for Egham would be a relocated but still convenient station with the benefit of direct airport services, no level crossings at all in the town with all their traffic consequences from long closures, and a high quality ‘active travel’ spine that could provide an attractive alternative to driving for many local journeys.
Actually, the simplest solution to the problem of rail access to Heathrow & the LC’s is to close the damned airport & turn it over to light-industrial use.
Re-locate airport to “Blackbushe” as was once proposed during WWI
Blackbushe is still a small airfiled, close to the A3 & W of the Reading – Dorking line.
Easy rail access from 2 lines – that mentioned,& the LSW main ( Nearest current station is Fleet )
Problems solved!
No crayoms were harmed during this exercise.
On seeing the news of Feltham Station improvements, and a one-time regular user: At Last!
Hopefully, they will improve the layout of the bus stands too. And it looks as if they are going to widen Hounslow Road too: The local enviro-nuts are out too, tying green ribbons around the trees, ignoring the ten – fifteen minutes wait it takes for traffic to cross in the rush hour with their idling engines (personal experience). I cannot see if they are going to demolish the existing bridge and replace or just add a bit on the side. A curious feature of the existing bridge is a cast-iron insert replacing a course of bricks on the northern side of the arch (Up side). It’s quite rusty and I suspect it was intended as fudge by the LSWR/SR to get those big tanks (G16 and H16) and big 4-6-0s through to access the Marshalling Yard.
@SHLR
“[Manor Road] Probably not as busy once Sheen Lane has been done….”
Manor Road is busy as it provides a bypass of Richmond town centre, leading to the one road on the Surrey bank that squeezes between Richmond Park and the Thames. It is doubtful that anyone currently using Manor Road would divert via a grade separated crossing at Mortlake, especially since the Clifford Avenue bridge already offers a shorter diversion.
Although the target of a lot of frustration, eliminating the other level crossings would not have a huge effect on congestion in the area, as all of them lead in fairly short order to further bottlenecks – the area is constrained between the river to the north and Richmond Park to the south. To the south they all lead in a few hundred yards to a congested junction with the South Circular Road, and beyond that only to Richmond Park. To the north, they only take you to Barnes riverside, from which the only way north is via Hammersmith Bridge (when open!) or, in the case of Mortlake, the bottleneck of Chalkers Corner (Great Chertsey Road/ South Circular Road).
@Mark T – all those station moves, all that tunnelling – still hardly sounds worthwhile for the sake of a few fasts and removal of – let us say – 8 x 2 minutes’ worth of traffic delays/hr at 4 crossings. Let me tell you the old joke about not starting from here if I was going there.
@Greg T – the principle is right; the trouble is the endless arguments as to where it should go instead. The move might even pay for itself – many hundred acres of well-serviced land in W London – a snip at £10bn…
@GH – For the Mortlake section there’d be no new or moved stations, ‘just’ a fast line tunnel and associated junction changes (at Barnes there might even be simplifications, perhaps removing some dreaded switched diamonds). For the Egham area, one new station would be on the new infrastructure and the other would be broadly to a design that was developed previously by Airtrack, and would place the station in a better location for the town centre, also making provision of a bay for some services terminating from the airport an easier task than doing so at the existing site, although it is not neccessary to move Staines station to allow the Egham diversion. HSR material already suggests extending Heathrow T5 Elizabeth Line trains to Staines.
There is a problem at some of those crossing, especially on the Mortlake section where fasts are catching up with stoppers and gates stay down for two trains in a row, then there’s stopper coming the other way, and that’s closely followed by another fast…
I’ve no current empirical evidence but I suspect road closure minutes extending into double figures is not an uncommon occurrence even with today’s traffic levels. A moderate regular interval stopping only service would be far less likely to cause these problems. The big Airtrack problem at Egham was the likely effect of the additional services proposed by Airtrack which were limited stop so potentially also catching up stoppers in this busy area and leading to long closures for more than one train in each direction.
The current HSR proposal already address this by putting the additional trains on a new line with no crossings, but I suggest the opportunity to leverage the SHR investment to remove all of teh town’s level crossing, at teh cost of a new station. Conversion of Pooley Green from AHB to MCB-CCTV after the school bus incident also led to both crossing near the town centre being closed for considerable periods. Before that locals on some journeys had the opportunity to get round the town crossing delays using the AHB, for which road closures were always much shorter.
@Greg. aaahh – Blackbushe. The go-to place during my plane-spotting youth in the 1950s. Well worth the 40(?) mile cycle ride from Ruislip to see the strange and exotic. As I recall, the engineering base was on the opposite side of the A30 to the Terminal and aircraft were towed across the A30. I don’t recall any traffic lights but surely there must have been – or was it all done by a man with a red flag?
Within the south east another station to have platform 0, is Redhill. Not in existance at the time the CityMapper piece was written.
Heathrow and Blackbushe feature in this film….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWCOX0_wp_I
@Graham H
” removal of – let us say – 8 x 2 minutes’ worth of traffic delays/hr at 4 crossings”
If only the delays were just two minutes – the barriers are often down at North Sheen for three trains (so at least five minutes, and usually nearer eight), and the chances of the queue then clearing before they come down again are minuscule. In the peaks (when there are both more trains and more road traffic) the gates are probably down for more than 75% of the time.
If it really is that bad at N Sheen (etc) then surely it’s time for the relevant Local Authority to simply… build a bridge?
And pay proper compensation ( not the niggardly usual amounts ) for property-removals.
That last is the difficult bit, of course – though I believe it was done for Croydon Tram, wasn’t it?
What is the value of replacing the level crossings, in monetary terms? Times that by the agreed number of years to write it down over and that is your budget for replacing the level crossings.
Whilst not simple, it is not that technically difficult to replace the crossings, but is it financially feasible? Unless there are plans to densify the suburbs along the line, I suspect that the answer is no. It will probably require a change in a political strategy, perhaps caused by a major incident, before this sort of project goes ahead.
Re: Barnes / Mortlake Level Crossings
Some historical information, for interest only.
When the electrification was being planned the LSWR gave an undertaking in July 1914 to the local authority that they would provide bridges at the level crossings if the electric trains caused more delays than their existing steam ones. The Kingston and Hounslow Loop electric services duly commenced in Jan and Mar 1916 respectively. It was found that the new services caused less delay to road traffic, and the undertaking given to the Council did not come into force.
However, the level crossings were apparently still a concern because on 21st December 1916 the LSWR Company Directors’ board meeting included this item, (paraphrased slightly) :-
***************
“The General Manager (i.e. Sir Herbert Walker) reported as to communications between the surveyor of Barnes Urban District Council and the Company’s Engineer in connection with proposals made by the former for dealing with the roads crossing the railway on the level within the Barnes District…and read the draft of a letter to the Council in which a proposal is made that if the Council will undertake the whole of the scheme put forward by their surveyor, viz :-
a) The provision of an underbridge (or alternatively an overbridge), at Sheen Lane,
b) The provision of an underbridge (or alternatively an overbridge), at White Hart Lane,
c) the provision of two footbridges at Vine Road level crossing and of a roadway from White Hart Lane to give access (to an adjacent property),
d) the widening of the bridge and approaches there to Rooke Lane,
at an estimated cost of £55,750 he would recommend the Company to contribute towards such cost the sum of £30,000 and would in addition convey to the Council any of the Company’s land and property necessary for carrying out of the schemes and also bear the cost of remodelling Mortlake station.
…
Draft letter approved,”
**********
(Item d above is probably a mistype for Rocks Lane, at Barnes station).
The LSWR were therefore asking Barnes UDC to find £25,750. Allowing for inflation (using the Bank of England website) gives a modern equivalent of c. £2.13M. Projects costs like this have obviously increased far more than general inflation; £2m probably wouldn’t pay for much nowadays.
Presumably Barnes UDC couldn’t raise the money and with a war on there were other priorities. But no doubt the engineers and planners for the current Council (and Network Rail/SWR) would be grateful if their predecessors had been able to take up this offer.
Ref: The Riverside Electric, LSWR Electrification 1912-1922; C. Chivers; South Western Circle; 2010. Page 115
ISBN 0-9503741-5-6
As I see it the problem with level crossings is that the road user has right of way. Am I correct in this assumption? That would stem from the road being there before the railway so that a right of way exists. This stops the most effective action which would be to shut the crossing to road traffic.
Bridges or underpasses will take up a lot of space and are very difficult in an urban environment.
The Manor Road crossing was bad in the 1960s when my boss at Chiswick LT Works used to roll in late claiming to have been held up by four trains at this crossing! Must be much worse these days.
@greg
“If it really is that bad at N Sheen (etc) then surely it’s time for the relevant Local Authority to simply… build a bridge?”
It would, like any bridge over or under a railway, be the railway’s responsibility. And clearing the choke point there would, as I explained, merely move the problem elsewhere. There are already queues at both ends of Manor Road at the junctions with the A305 and A316, sometimes tailing right back to the level crossing so that even when the gates are open it is not possible to cross.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4682865,-0.2665233,3a,15y,181.26h,87.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfZ36_KhbReaixsMrSRDydA!2e0!5s20140801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Hence the need for the signs shown here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4649097,-0.2885693,3a,37.5y,337.54h,82.27t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfHORDZGJkirAhkdn2jL3mw!2e0!5s20160501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
The correspondence with the LSWR is interesting – note the mention of Rooke Lane (presumably Rocks Lane). A map of 1913 shows that Clifford Avenue – now the South Circular Road and the only road bridge across the railway between Barnes and Richmond, only existed as a footpath at the time.
@Jim Jordan – there is a difference between a pre-existing right of way (which the roads were) and the roads having right of way (which they clearly don’t – for all sorts of practical reasons to do with their inability to stop quickly, trains have right of way at level crossings – the gates are simply there to enforce that). Existing rights of way have always been able to be “stopped up” by the Act of Parliament enabling the construction of a new railway, as with HS2 at present, and to close a level crossing on an existing railway can also be done if due legal process is followed. (Network Rail are closing vast numbers of pedestrian crossings, sometimes quite controversially when they appear to be simply exporting (or even multiplying) the risk rather than eliminating it)
http://www.stopnetworkrail.org.uk/case-studies.html
And however much of a nuisance these level crossings are, the local traffic situation is not going to be improved by simply closing them, – the cure really would be worse than the illness as it would just cause gridlock on the already busy routes along the South Circular and Rocks Lane, and through the centre of Richmond.
If this was Paris, a road tunnel would have been built under Richmond Park between Chiswick and Roehampton, with junctions either side of the railway in Kew, and East Sheen. But this is London
In terms of traffic there are like to be 2 major changes in the area near future:
1. The Mortlake (Ex Watney /AB InBev) Brewery redevelopment.
2. H&F council getting round to sorting Hammersmith Bridge to give it an 18tonne weight limit (rather than 7.5tonne with some other restrictions currently e.g. 1 small single deck bus at a time) which will see the width restrictions go and traffic flow increase substantially. (TfL are meant to be part funding but can’t find the cash 😉 )
Hence other changes locally may be need to mitigate against the changes.
timbeau,
trains have right of way at level crossings – the gates are simply there to enforce that
Maybe so nowadays. But the main reason to gate a public road level crossing in the way that they originally did was to prevent out-of-control horses being run over by a train thus injuring passengers. If it were simply a right of way issue the gates would not have needed to be so substantial and would have been higher to prevent people vaulting over them.
Has anybody considered entrenching the Richmond-Barnes section to a depth of 3-4 metres (10 feet ish) in a concrete trough? This would involve very little encroachment and reduce the heights of overbridges to maximum 2-3 metres (8 feet ish). Admittedly this risks flooding as this would put the bottom of the structure at or below the water table. This suggests heavy waterproofing and possibly automatic pumps, but then again the Tube has been living with that risk for its entire history .
MR SW
How would such a trough be built without closing the railway for something like a year?
Bored tunnels have the advantage of causing little surface disturbance, except at portals and any intermediate shafts.
Generally, there are no cheap solutions to the level crossing issue – of course – and the cost of resolving them by palliative measures that slavishly follow the existing railway in tunnel and cutting are such that it would probably pay for a new tunneled line – and if you were building that you wouldn’t necessarily follow the existing route at all: you might well prefer to have your subsurface stations in more convenient places, for example. Remember, the line was built to serve Kingston primarily; other places such as North Sheen could be served because they happened to be on the way… [Having lit blue touch paper, retires to safe distance].
@Graham H
I think you mean Richmond, not Kingston. The line opened in 1846, but the extension to Kingston didn’t open until the 1860s, by which time the “Windsor Lines” had already reached not only Windsor (1851) but also Reading (1856).
Whatever – my point was about the importance of the intermediate stations to the planners of the day.
Re. PoP – See pp 7-11 of this document for discussion of the historical and subsequent development of level crossings:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/LawCommission_LXConsultationFull2010.pdf
I say leave the existing line where it is today and retain the stopping service only on it, with a regular interval service that guarantees minimum road closure time. Consider converting some of the crossings to the new type of AFBCL, which, for limited approach speed and start away from rest, can significantly reduce road closure time, but is not compatible with the non stop trains passing through at speed. Route all the limited stop trains; the Readings, Windsors and any additional airport services, via a new bored tunnel fast bypass line which would have no expensive new stations on it at all.
A video of the first AFBCL, at Ardrossan Princes Street, Scotland:
https://youtu.be/zBZxIOeBPG8
Apologies, poor html skills
@ Londoner in Scotland
You do this. Obviously they had done lots of piling work before and had a bit more space, although through Mortlake at least there are roads on either side. It shows what can be done if you throw resources at a problem.
Although I’m pretty confident that as Graham H suggested earlier, the most cost-effective solution is buy enough properties and knock them down so road bridges can be built
AFBCL Automatic Full Barrier Crossing, Locally monitored.
It is an enhanced form of ABCL, being Automatic Barrier Crossing, Locally monitored.
@Herned
If “this” is an HTML link, it doesn’t seem to be working for me.
@Mark Townend/LBM
In what way is this ABFCL an improvement on the existing arrangements, where the crossing is monitored and controlled from the signalbox? Having the driver leave the cab to press a plunger is certainly not going to save any time.
@Timbeau
That’s just in one direction because it’s a start from rest. In the other there’s a short strike in at a reduced speed based on that for an ABCL type crossing, so more like 30 odd seconds before the train arrives rather than the 2 minutes or more typical of standard full barrier crossings. For the start from rest case a different strike in method based on stopping/non-stopping controls could be used to avoid the driver having to get out of the cab, but either way the road closed time would be significantly shorter than today. The crossing speed limit that would apply to all trains is based on visibility on approach by the train driver, as it is for ABCL and is never higher than 55mph I think.
Timbeau
OTOH, if the locals & their elected council(s) really want to get rid of the problem, then they can pay for it, can’t they? Precedents exist in other railway-related ares, don’t they?
@ timbeau
It’s the same video I linked on one of the other articles. I’ll just post the link as obviously html is not my strong point… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49TjGxa80Iw&t
@Greg A bridge has been built at North Sheen in the past few years. Like the one at Mortlake it’s a pedestrian footbridge.
Note in the Melbourne video the width of the railway corridor and the amount of working space. In contrast the Windsor line is much closer to houses.
Yes, you can compulsorily purchase people’s homes, but this can make it difficult to get schemes authorised, because of the extent of opposition. The lines from Waterloo are well populated with the professional and well-connected classes.