London Overground

[mr_jrt]

Good to know they're at least noticed the same things as us:

"Reorientation of NLL (Watford) DC services:

Should further platform capacity be required at Euston for more WCML
“fast” trains (or as “staging works” to allow platforms 18 – 21 to be
constructed), it will help to merge the (Watford) DC services with the
proposed ELL services. Currently the (Watford) DC services run into
Euston. ELL services are likely to run to Dalston, Highbury and/or
Camden. Enhancements at Camden (some of which can be fitted within the
existing railway lands) will allow the NLL DC to be extended east from
Chalk Farm and joined up with the ELL. Watford) DC passengers not
using the Bakerloo line and specifically requiring access to Euston
could be accommodated through a new platform on the WCML “slow lines”
at Willesden and the opportunity to connect. See below for a
schematic. Consultation with TfL will be required should this sub-
option be considered going forward. This potential intervention has
not been costed or appraised."

[mr_jrt]

Originally Posted by ladyb

The new Southeastern timetable means that trains serving Lewisham/St John's are now at 10 minute intervals at PEAK times. This is outrageous as it has lead to overcrowding at the optimum travelling times. Incidentally, trains on the Crayford line also stop at St John's.

I think you will find that there would be one hell of dust up if Network Rail, or whoever has control of stations now, tried to close St John's. Its single platform might give it the appearance of a country halt, but St John's serves commuters to the City and is well used, especially at weekends.

Would it be viable to have the New Cross branch take over the lines serving St. John's down to Lewisham? - i.e. would the "fast" lines be able to handle all the services that would have used the "slow" lines as well as their current services? The North Kent & Bexleyheath Lines could use the Lewisham crossover and the Tanner's Hill flyover to access the "fast" lines, and the South Eastern main line already has Parks Bridge Junction. I suppose you could also give over the Catford services to LO

[stimarco]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

Would it be viable to have the New Cross branch take over the lines serving St. John's down to Lewisham? - i.e. would the "fast" lines be able to handle all the services that would have used the "slow" lines as well as their current services? The North Kent & Bexleyheath Lines could use the Lewisham crossover and the Tanner's Hill flyover to access the "fast" lines, and the South Eastern main line already has Parks Bridge Junction. I suppose you could also give over the Catford services to LO

Like any good metro, much of the ELL north of Surrey Quays is largely segregated from the rest of the network, but this much harder to achieve south of the river. The more interfaces between two networks, the greater the scope for disruption and delays.

There are two pairs of platforms at Lewisham, arranged in a 'V' shape, both with sharp curves. The approach speeds are pitiful and trains tend to get backed-up on their way into Lewisham, so the LO would suffer a lot of interference.

Furthermore, the junction at the apex of the 'V' is entirely flat. There are two tracks heading up a ramp before curving off towards Nunhead. The other two tracks run directly to St. Johns, serving the platforms. Shortly before St. Johns, the four tracks from the bypass join the route, with the Tanners Hill flyover dropping down along the far side of the cutting. Only the two tracks out of Lewisham serve St. Johns; a service running via the Tanners Hill flyover has no choice but to skip it.

The Tanners Hill flyover is merely a single track which comes off the Nunhead route's "down" line and follows the main route towards New Cross. Trains have to switch to the 'wrong' line while climbing up the ramp to the Nunhead chord to get to it. Nothing about Lewisham Junction would ever be described as "elegant". Even the bridge over the bypass lines is still the original "temporary" truss bridge built hurriedly after the St. Johns disaster of the 1950s!

The problem is that extending the ELL branch at New Cross would require a bit of surgery at both junctions. At New Cross, the ELL approaches on a single track branch. There used to be a grade-separated junction here—the present ELL approaches along a remnant of it.

The other part of the junction was a line which connected with the tracks on the opposite side of New Cross station to the present ELL platform, giving full separation. (Very similar to how New Cross Gate's junction has been remodelled, but with the ELL diving under, rather than flying over, the main line.)

But simply reinstating this junction won't work for the New Cross branch: "down" ELL trains would be able to serve St. Johns and Lewisham, but the "up" trains would have to run via the bypass—or the Tanners Hill flyover, neither of which have platforms at St. Johns.

[TedStriker]

Originally Posted by mr_jrt

Good to know they're at least noticed the same things as us:

"Reorientation of NLL (Watford) DC services:

Should further platform capacity be required at Euston for more WCML
“fast” trains (or as “staging works” to allow platforms 18 – 21 to be
constructed), it will help to merge the (Watford) DC services with the
proposed ELL services. Currently the (Watford) DC services run into
Euston. ELL services are likely to run to Dalston, Highbury and/or
Camden. Enhancements at Camden (some of which can be fitted within the
existing railway lands) will allow the NLL DC to be extended east from
Chalk Farm and joined up with the ELL. Watford) DC passengers not
using the Bakerloo line and specifically requiring access to Euston
could be accommodated through a new platform on the WCML “slow lines”
at Willesden and the opportunity to connect. See below for a
schematic. Consultation with TfL will be required should this sub-
option be considered going forward. This potential intervention has
not been costed or appraised."

Yep, it's good to see these words coming from an 'official' body, as well as from SC forums.

[somersetchris]

Underground News January 2010

[mr_jrt]

Another interesting submission from usenet.

I find it an intriguing concept and quite a novel solution to the problem of serving both the WLL and the Richmond Line, though it's not much use for through service from the Richmond line heading north (be it to Willesden or Cricklewood.) I'm also not entirely sure of the benefit of serving the Chiltern and MML either, though I guess it's an extra pair of platforms each they can both ill-afford at their respective termini.

Their flyunder destroys any possibility of reinstating platforms on the slow lines at Willesden though, which would be a pity.

...with that much construction going on it'd be handy if the freight loop at Olympia was extended through to this station to join the proposed one there though. Might enable the WLL to have the decent level of passenger service it needs.

[ChingfordFlanuer]

As always you "experts and insiders" make for fascinating reading to us mortal commuters/leisure travellers, thanks.

The report mentions the lack of interchanges with LU, have any of you heard whether there has been any progress on interchanges @ Walthamstow Queens Road/Central and, also @ Hackney Downs/Central?

Many hours of internet searching done to no avail, attempts at clarity ending in futility.

CF

[cle]

Hello there,

There is something called the Network Rail Discretionary Fund - which is basically a slush fund they keep for spending on smaller schemes and incremental improvements.

Here's the link, it mentions Hackney Interchange Upgrade but not much else detail-wise:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4465.aspx - so it's on their radar. Hackney Council should have plans surely?

The sceptic in me thinks they'll spend £10m on a shit street walkway and some signage, rather than merging the stations into one with direct access between platforms, more stopping trains and a snappy new brand, like they should do.

[Tubeman]

It's frustrating because there was a covered interchange walkway between Hackney Downs and Hackney Central stations until the latter closed in 1944. It was accessed off the west ends of both platforms at Hackney Central, with 2 walkways running alongside the North London Line up to the GER viaduct, where they rose up to join it and then along the east side of the GER viaduct to join the Up Fast platform at Hackney Downs.

The space vacated by the walkways must surely still be there, so reinstating them shouldn't be too problematic.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by Tubeman

It's frustrating because there was a covered interchange walkway between Hackney Downs and Hackney Central stations until the latter closed in 1944. It was accessed off the west ends of both platforms at Hackney Central, with 2 walkways running alongside the North London Line up to the GER viaduct, where they rose up to join it and then along the east side of the GER viaduct to join the Up Fast platform at Hackney Downs.

The space vacated by the walkways must surely still be there, so reinstating them shouldn't be too problematic.

Would a reinstatement be disabilty and health and safety legislation compliant though? Presumably that's where the difficulty and expense come in.

[Mauritz]

Originally Posted by cle

Hello there,

There is something called the Network Rail Discretionary Fund - which is basically a slush fund they keep for spending on smaller schemes and incremental improvements.

Here's the link, it mentions Hackney Interchange Upgrade but not much else detail-wise:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4465.aspx - so it's on their radar. Hackney Council should have plans surely?

The sceptic in me thinks they'll spend £10m on a shit street walkway and some signage, rather than merging the stations into one with direct access between platforms, more stopping trains and a snappy new brand, like they should do.

This all seems to point towards connecting the ends of the platforms:

The Hackney Interchange project is now planned to be taken forward by Network Rail during the current Control Period. This convenient direct link between platforms at Hackney Downs and Hackney Central is likely to generate more passenger traffic on the three West Anglia branches feeding into it, especially south of the previous up-bound interchanges [all with the Victoria line]. This is all the more likely with the prospect of very significant enhancements over the next three-four years to the capacity, punctuality and overall quality and attractiveness of the service on the North London line through Hackney Central. In turn this is expected to affect the Chingford branch more than the Lea Valley or Southbury Loop lines approaching Hackney Downs, as it has the lowest frequency, probably the greatest peak crowding south of those three Tube interchanges, and perhaps the least scope for short-medium term significant capacity uplift on the route through Clapton.

Hackney Neighbourhoods and Regeneration - July 2007

Pedestrian movement: The Hackney Downs / Hackney Central Interchange project for a direct interchange connection between the two stations aims to significantly reduce the interchange time platform-to-platform. The project is identified as a Strategic Interchange in the draft Mayor of London Transport Strategy and initial feasibility work has been undertaken. No amendments to the AAP are considered necessary.

Hackney Central Area Action Plan (Phase 1) - Masterplan Consultation Report - October 2009

[ChingfordFlanuer]

Thanks folks, the network rail one was the only one I'd yet to find but, as mentioned at least its on the radar.

Waltham Forest are dismally failing to follow up on last years High Court win against the developers blocking the Walthamstow interchange (another one which used to exist albeit not DDA compliant - you can still see the steps) and the Hall Farm curve wont happen til the 20's if at all (and then probably at the expense of our Hackney links).

The Hackney Downs link was our last best hope of some sort of non bus olympic connection (anyone that knows Chingford/Walthamstow will affirm the nightmare of getting to Stratford, it's a coin toss whether Liverpool Street then onto the Central is quicker!)

WF really blew a chance at some Northern borough olympic job opportunities there.

Thanks again.

CF

[Tubeman]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

Would a reinstatement be disabilty and health and safety legislation compliant though? Presumably that's where the difficulty and expense come in.

I think it would be perfectly possible via long inclines between the west ends of Hackney Central platforms and the level of the GER viaduct, although lifts would be needed at Hackney Downs for step-free access between the Up fast and other platforms.

[cle]

Can't they just not do it, as with Shepherd's Bush?

Clearly, DDA rules can be circumvented for cost, and this is also not a new station (see also Holloway Road 'upgrades' for the Emirates!) so perhaps it has grandfather rights on the issue? Whereas a brand new station would need it by law?

Finally, is there any mention of renaming the station to be one entity - I suppose likely might be Hackney (as on some 38 buses), Hackney Central, Hackney Downs or Hackney Interchange?

[mr_jrt]

Not a cheap option, I know, but could there be a case for moving the platforms closer together? Hackney Downs is already up on a viaduct, so moving it south over the bridge and likewise, moving/extending Hackney Central Westwards to under the bridge shouldn't be too hard (abet not cheap), as it would permit plain lift access to both platforms from each other?

Hackney Central would be under the bridge if extended to 9 car length (9x20m), and a pair of walkways would probably suffice rather than the expensive option of moving Hackney Downs south (though this might enable the increase of the speed through the station by reducing the curvature required due to being so close to the junction, it might also enable simpler track geometry to be used, reducing maintenance costs). I doubt Hackney Downs would justify extension as I think it's already good for 12 carriage trains.

You could achieve the same with 4 walkways and and four lifts, but reducing the distance could still be worthwhile enough if it justified merging the two stations into one, with the benefits it brings.

[CroydonDave]

Just a quick piece of news from the suburbs. I saw a overground train at West Croydon today on testing. First time I'd seen one. Kind regards Dave

[Wild@Heart]

Yeah, saw about three or four on Sunday evening. Two passed each other stopping (but not opening doors) at Anerley, then saw another two on my way up town. Good looking machines.

[mr_jrt]

Whilst looking for diagrams on Network rail's site detailing the NLL platform extension works, I stumbled across a response to a 2006 RUS by the Green Party.

It's quite interesting, if only because of the number of ideas that have cropped up here from time to time that are mentioned in this document. It's a shame they have so little say in government, because I do find the greens do seem to get things right. Perhaps that's because the corporate lobbyists ignore them, or perhaps because the idealists gravitate towards them. Anyway, interesting read with several talking points.

[ladyb]

Originally Posted by CroydonDave

Just a quick piece of news from the suburbs. I saw a overground train at West Croydon today on testing. First time I'd seen one. Kind regards Dave

If you can get yourself to New Cross gate on Sunday, 11 April you will be able to ride one all the way to Dalston Junction. I don't know when the first train will be leaving, but I am l hoping that the London Reconnections site will know.

[Officer Dibble]

The trains are now visible on test runs through Canada Water station too.

Interesting to see the maps they've put up in the station are for full phase 2 service (e.g. south to W Croydon and to Clapham J).