North London / Brent Cross

[Jon10]

Please give your opinions on our "Brent Cross Railway" proposals, which are shown in detail on the London Group's page of

www.bettertransport.org.uk


We are opposed to the massive increase in road traffic for the £4 billion Brent Cross development along the North Circular Road / A5 / M1 / A41 junctions. Instead we wish the developers to spend money on a light-rail system through the site, which can then be extended along existing freight corridors to Wembley and Park Royal.

The (incomplete) plans of the developers are at

www.brentcrosscricklewood.com

and

www.barnet.gov.uk


Our system would connect the Northern Line (both branches eventually), the Jubillee, Bakerloo, Central and Piccadilly and Chiltern Line, and eventually reach Ealing Broadway for Crossrail.

What do you think??

[sweek]

I think it's quite a good idea, really. I'm just not sure if I can ever see this happening.

[U Thant]

It's an awful scheme. The costs are very high (there's a lot of construction work needed) but the benefits are minimal. Making it slightly easies to interchange from the outer end of one line to the outer end of another - if you're prepared to wait for a ten-minutely - is not something worth spending money on. Similarly, if you're commuting you're going to be better off walking (or taking a bus) to either of the Brent Cross stations than bothering with the BCR.

[sweek]

But it's not just Brent Cross, this whole artery is very very busy. It's probably the worst part of the North Circular as well. I can see a Croydon-tram like scheme working.

I also don't know how much it costs. That 4 billion is what the roadside developments would cost, but it doesn't say anything about the tram/light rail option.

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by Jon10

Please give your opinions on our "Brent Cross Railway" proposals, which are shown in detail on the London Group's page of

www.bettertransport.org.uk

And the actual link is;

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/me...08/brent_cross

[U Thant]

Originally Posted by sweek

But it's not just Brent Cross, this whole artery is very very busy. It's probably the worst part of the North Circular as well. I can see a Croydon-tram like scheme working.

I also don't know how much it costs. That 4 billion is what the roadside developments would cost, but it doesn't say anything about the tram/light rail option.

But how many of those journeys will be possible or any easier with the aid of the BCR? I'd posit a vanishingly small number.

You're looking at a nine figure sum (ie >£100m) for a scheme like this. While I'm sure it would be cheap compared to larger transport schemes, that doesn't make it good value for money.

[Salif]

The North Circular needs sinking into a tunnel and upgraded into a 6 lane motorway with the aim of eventually orbiting London and connecting up all the motorways which feed into London.

[r-g-b]

http://http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/

If you haven't seen it before have a look at the Site above, it gives quite alot of detail about what the north circular and the the other ringways that were never built.

[sotonsi]

trams would be better than DLR style light rail along this route - cheaper for one and easier to expand for another. You might end up with a network like this eventually (which wouldn't be a finished project - I just put in a slightly changed NLT plan that's on always touch out, added the later phases of the BCR, the Northern Heights and added a couple of extras along disused railway alignments that are clear enough to have trams on):


As for it being stupid to make it easier to "interchange from the outer end of one line to the outer end of another - if you're prepared to wait for a ten-minutely" - surely that's what the GOBLin fails to do - it'll be a 15minute train, failing to interchange with many lines, as far out as the BCR (which is not the outer ends, but the middle of the end-zone 1 section). I know that the infrastructure is there, however, a lot of money is being thrown at it in order to improve it.

Given how bad West London is for interchange, it would be good. However bear in mind that orbital interchange traffic is secondary - it's intra- and inter-surburban - linking small hubs to each other, and the suburbs in between. This is why the GOBLin needs upgrading, why Tramlink has been a success, because it does that.

[Jon10]

A better link is to

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/london_local_group

where the third item is three pages that shows the railway corridors and the North Circular.


There are plans for 29,000 extra road journeys a day to Brent Cross, and a new "Spaghetti Junction" at the start of the M1. For public transport investment, we believe we need something better than more buses and (possibly) a new Thameslink station (rather close to the existing Cricklewood station).

Our plan is just one possibility that needs studying, perhaps by using Brent Cross Section 106 money, and safeguarding our possible routes through the Brent Cross land.

There is not much civil engineering on the core "Brent Cross Railway", only in the Brent Cross site, and a flyover/under at Neasden Junction. The cost would come later in crossing the M1, which was built on the trackbed of the old Edgware-to-Mill Hill East railway.

Incidentally, there is also an updated "orbital tube" plan, devised by the "West London Alliance" of London boroughs, running from Surbiton via Ealing Broadway to Wembley and Brent Cross. This would be built before Crossrail 2. Their updated plan will be published shortly.

[Jon10]

This is the West London Orbital.

[sweek]

I do quite like it after reading all those documents. Has there been any political reaction to the proposals yet?

[U Thant]

Originally Posted by Jon10

There is not much civil engineering on the core "Brent Cross Railway", only in the Brent Cross site, and a flyover/under at Neasden Junction. The cost would come later in crossing the M1, which was built on the trackbed of the old Edgware-to-Mill Hill East railway.

How are you crossing the Midland Main Line? There seems to be a half mile gap where you give no detail - and in possibly the most challenging area.

Plus you've got to include the cost of actually building 4 miles of railway, and a depot, and however much Network rail charge you for rebuilding/resignalling the Dudding Hill line as single track, and so on.

[U Thant]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

trams would be better than DLR style light rail along this route - cheaper for one and easier to expand for another. You might end up with a network like this eventually

What's the route to Manor House? It's not really on the way between Finsbury Park and Harringay.

However bear in mind that orbital interchange traffic is secondary - it's intra- and inter-surburban - linking small hubs to each other, and the suburbs in between. This is why the GOBLin needs upgrading, why Tramlink has been a success, because it does that.

Well yes. But the Goblin is 14 miles long taking in lots of different places, which means it provides a relatively fast route between lots of combinations of suburbs, with various overlapping journeys providing the custom.

The BCR is only 4 miles long, linking only a few places, so the journey oppurtunities are very limited. It's too short to be useful for more than a small number of people, but a longer route would be astronomically expensive.

(which is why I think this proposal works against its stated aim of demonstrating the case for new local rail)

[JDRS]

I don't know a great deal about this area but having driven to Brent Cross (and through it) on several occasions it did strike me as very car orientated. It would be good for decent public transport to be included in this revamp of this part of London, and I suspect that the new tube/rail connection shown on that site would take people off the buses at the very least.

[Jon10]

It is not a four mile railway; it stretches from Ealing Broadway (when Crossrail is open for reaching central London) to Finchley Central, and acts as a bypass for the North Circular Road. It interchanges with the Northern Line (both branches), Jubilee, Metropolitan, Bakerloo, Central, Piccadilly and District lines, mainly sharing freight railway corridors, so little land purchase is needed. The major expense would be to cross the MML and M1 motorway.

Barnet Council are advertising a public consultation exhibition on Brent Cross: Tues 6 and Wed 7 May at Hendon Leisure Centre, Marble Drive, off Claremont Road, Brent Cross, NW2 1XQ, from 11am to 8pm. However, the planning application for Brent Cross has not been fully submitted - the "Transport Assessment" from the developers is not expected until June.

[cle]

Looking at that tram map above, unless the tram is on the Thameslink track space, there is no way on earth you could run a tram up West End Lane and Mill Lane.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by U Thant

Well yes. But the Goblin is 14 miles long taking in lots of different places, which means it provides a relatively fast route between lots of combinations of suburbs, with various overlapping journeys providing the custom.

how does it being longer make it faster?

The BCR is only 4 miles long, linking only a few places, so the journey opportunities are very limited.

how long was the City and South London railway when it opened? The Central London Railway? The Bakerloo? All of which were rather short, giving few journey options.

It's too short to be useful for more than a small number of people, but a longer route would be astronomically expensive.

though extensions could be phase 2. Journey opportunities aren't that limited - they could be less limited (having the Neasden-Wembley Stadium branch as part of phase 1, and extend it to Wembley Central alongside the GC line).

(which is why I think this proposal works against its stated aim of demonstrating the case for new local rail)

but it doesn't - it shows that small scale schemes are viable (if it works). If it was longer, it would maintain the status quo, that you believe is true, that only lengthy local railways work.

[U Thant]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

how does it being longer make it faster?

Because it allows direct journeys.

how long was the City and South London railway when it opened? The Central London Railway? The Bakerloo? All of which were rather short, giving few journey options.

But they went through much more densely populated areas with demonstrable demand and no competition from cars.

but it doesn't - it shows that small scale schemes are viable

It would have been great if they had. That's kind of the worst thing about this document - anyone can work out a route, but it only gets interesting when you can demonstrate the route has low costs and solid demand. Sure, they think it might, but until you can put those things in numbers it's a pointless exercise.

[sweek]

Originally Posted by U Thant

It would have been great if they had. That's kind of the worst thing about this document - anyone can work out a route, but it only gets interesting when you can demonstrate the route has low costs and solid demand. Sure, they think it might, but until you can put those things in numbers it's a pointless exercise.

Well loads of people thought that a route from Stratford to Lewisham that doesn't enter zone 1 would be very unpopular, and that the DLR would be too small-scale to get any passengers in the Docklands once the Jubilee was extended to Canary Wharf. I think that this route is a very interesting could be quite good because:

a) it is a low-cost DLR like system
b) it follow an incredibly congested car and bus artery (the North Circular)
c) it connects with all the tube and train lines it crosses, meaning it can make journeys from one outer end of a tube line to another much quicker.