Controversial railway opinions (without a firm foundation in logic..)

[yorksrob]

Sadly I think the time for a cross-Basingstoke rail route has passed. I doubt the planning applications south of the town would succeed either -- thing is that it's not really just NIMBYism, but that people are now more aware of what they might lose to unrestricted development rather than restoration of brownfield site within towns themselves. We need to do a lot more with what we have in terms of better public road transport before we start ordering more rails.

But surely, if your concern is about unrestricted development, road based public transport is potentially just as problematic as rail, as demonstrated by the ribbon development that emerged alongside bus served main roads between the wars ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sadly I think the time for a cross-Basingstoke rail route has passed. I doubt the planning applications south of the town would succeed either -- thing is that it's not really just NIMBYism, but that people are now more aware of what they might lose to unrestricted development rather than restoration of brownfield site within towns themselves. We need to do a lot more with what we have in terms of better public road transport before we start ordering more rails.

I think you could do a fair bit for rail in Basingstoke without building a new line. I'd open a new station at Chineham on the Basingstoke-Reading line, and open stations at Basing and Worting on the SWML, and Oakley on the branch to Salisbury, and serve them by (1) extending the London-Basingstoke stoppers to run to Oakley, calling at Hook-Basing-Basingstoke-Worting-Oakley, and also having the London-Salisbury semifast call at Oakley, and anything on the SWML that calls at Micheldever also call at Worting. Won't do much for Brighton Hill area but at least some parts of Basingstoke will then have a convenient commuter service without having to travel into the town centre to get to it.

 

[The Ham]

I think you could do a fair bit for rail in Basingstoke without building a new line. I'd open a new station at Chineham on the Basingstoke-Reading line, and open stations at Basing and Worting on the SWML, and Oakley on the branch to Salisbury, and serve them by (1) extending the London-Basingstoke stoppers to run to Oakley, calling at Hook-Basing-Basingstoke-Worting-Oakley, and also having the London-Salisbury semifast call at Oakley, and anything on the SWML that calls at Micheldever also call at Worting. Won't do much for Brighton Hill area but at least some parts of Basingstoke will then have a convenient commuter service without having to travel into the town centre to get to it.

I've had similar thoughts, the other potential option for the Basingstoke Stoppers would be to extend to a new siding station at the leisure park.

That and/or build a grade separated junction to allow a new Basingstoke to Ascot (2tph) service (junction to allow Farnborough Main to/from Frimley) to create a metro for that area (allows more stations between the existing ones to be built without showing down the Waterloo services).

Even pre Crossrail 2 (CR2)would allow 6tph Basingstoke/Farnborough, at least 3tph* Basingstoke/Hook & Winchfield, 5tph Basingstoke/Fleet, post CR2 that would be +1tph to each of those (Farnborough likely +2)

* Hook/Winchfield could drop 1tph direct to Waterloo, but with 2tph local trains could change at Farnborough to the faster services for a similar (but more frequent) journey time, that could allow a new station to get a direct to Waterloo service

Whilst +7tph between Farnborough and Basingstoke (2tph Ascot/Basingstoke and 5tph from capacity from CR2) could be tight there's at least 8tph (Alton, Woking and Portsmouth services) at Woking which don't make it as far as Farnborough.

 

[BazingaTribe]

I think you could do a fair bit for rail in Basingstoke without building a new line. I'd open a new station at Chineham on the Basingstoke-Reading line, and open stations at Basing and Worting on the SWML, and Oakley on the branch to Salisbury, and serve them by (1) extending the London-Basingstoke stoppers to run to Oakley, calling at Hook-Basing-Basingstoke-Worting-Oakley, and also having the London-Salisbury semifast call at Oakley, and anything on the SWML that calls at Micheldever also call at Worting. Won't do much for Brighton Hill area but at least some parts of Basingstoke will then have a convenient commuter service without having to travel into the town centre to get to it.

Chineham is definitely something I'd do. The shopping centre there would be a good reason to open it. However, that's not a particularly controversial/illogical opinion -- there have been plans floating about for a station there for years and with Green Park becoming a reality, Chineham could definitely go ahead.

I stand by my opposition to a line through to Alton though. The answer to transport issues lies in planning more carefully in general, and fundamentally whether rail or road, I don't think it's good to be ploughing up yet more greenfield land. I don't think anyone is going to change my mind -- I love trains and railways and use them a lot, but I'm not persuaded that churning the land back up achieves any more than pursuing greener road transport such as buses running on alternative fuels.

New build housing in Reading, for instance, has been built along the IDR and redevelopment has transformed what used to be a squalid/derelict part of the town centre into something more pleasant to be around. Basingstoke itself got what we call 'Festering Place' (Festival Place, and despite the nickname it is a wonderful place to shop) to contain the shopping centre in one place and has actually been relatively constrained after all the new town build post-war. Sustainable development and transport really does need to stop thinking in terms of 'let's build something new!' and finding more creative ways of using what we have. I wake up to birdsong every morning because the planners of my estate had a creative approach to building houses round a pedestrian walkway/small park rather than just concrete and tarmac roads. I had to get rid of my front garden because as disabled I couldn't look after it satisfactorily and it ran riot during the warm, wet weather over the past couple of years, but I want to try and preserve nature elsewhere.

Sensitive development thinks about how to create a path for humans through the natural world. I don't agree with paving over the countryside with roads either, although some could be better maintained. When I made the original comment in this thread I was cold and tired from a long journey where I'd missed just about every connection I possibly could have missed, but thinking more clearly about it now it just doesn't mesh with contemporary approaches to development.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The Overground isn’t that great, and large termini are better than through services.

Honestly, I preferred the way the Southern system was before the Overground. At the time I thought sending the Overground south of New Cross Gate seemed a bit weird, and the severing of the South London Line at Battersea Park always looks a bit sad.

As a child, I always found the North London Line annoying that it never ran into a terminus. Going down the old Broad Street Viaduct not too long ago, I thought how much more interesting this would be if it still ran into a terminus. Yes I know it’s silly and the Overground is a million miles more useful than how it was 40 years ago, but just my controversial opinion.

 

[PGAT]

The Overground isn’t that great, and large termini are better than through services.

Honestly, I preferred the way the Southern system was before the Overground. At the time I thought sending the Overground south of New Cross Gate seemed a bit weird, and the severing of the South London Line at Battersea Park always looks a bit sad.

As a child, I always found the North London Line annoying that it never ran into a terminus. Going down the old Broad Street Viaduct not too long ago, I thought how much more interesting this would be if it still ran into a terminus. Yes I know it’s silly and the Overground is a million miles more useful than how it was 40 years ago, but just my controversial opinion.

To be fair, the severing of the line at Battersea Park isn’t the fault of the Overground, Platform 3 being extended to 10 coaches got in the way of the junction

 

[ChiefPlanner]

To be fair, the severing of the line at Battersea Park isn’t the fault of the Overground, Platform 3 being extended to 10 coaches got in the way of the junction

As mentioned before , Broad Street's demise paid for much of the rebuilding of next door LIverpool Street. It was in a very sad state by the end , and often deserted out of hours. Staff working there overnight (keeping an eye on it, and the stabled stock , were never keen on that shift !)

 

[Turtle]

As mentioned before , Broad Street's demise paid for much of the rebuilding of next door LIverpool Street. It was in a very sad state by the end , and often deserted out of hours. Staff working there overnight (keeping an eye on it, and the stabled stock , were never keen on that shift !)

I was working in the City around 1972 and had to visit a client in Hampstead using Broad St Station. It appeared horribly neglected and the interior of the train I boarded was absolutely covered in graffiti. I'd never seen anything on Southern Region to compare.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I was working in the City around 1972 and had to visit a client in Hampstead using Broad St Station. It appeared horribly neglected and the interior of the train I boarded was absolutely covered in graffiti. I'd never seen anything on Southern Region to compare.

Broad St was as you say , horribly neglected - but the 501's were generally well looked after (ambience wise) , by Croxley Carriage shed ......still , much of those areas served were "pre-gentrication" and much worse than today - applies also to much of the DC lines. (discussed in some detail before re the DC !)

 

[HSTEd]

How many through platforms would we need for all existing london terminating trains?

Could we build a super Chatelet-Les-Halles complex somewhere?

 

[Wolfie]

How many through platforms would we need for all existing london terminating trains?

Could we build a super Chatelet-Les-Halles complex somewhere?

Convenient to pretty much no-one lol..

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As a child, I always found the North London Line annoying that it never ran into a terminus. Going down the old Broad Street Viaduct not too long ago, I thought how much more interesting this would be if it still ran into a terminus. Yes I know it’s silly and the Overground is a million miles more useful than how it was 40 years ago, but just my controversial opinion.

I visited Broad Street once, as a child in the 1970s. It may have been neglected but it was above ground and on a sunny day felt a lot more open and potentially, if looked after, pleasant than the claustrophobia of the semi-underground Liverpool Street. I'm sad it closed.

In a parallel Universe in which Broad Street hadn't closed but had instead been refurbished, I could imagine it today being a much busier terminus, serving 3 metro lines: The Mildmay line to Richmond/Clapham Junction; a separate branch of the Mildmay line running to Dalston Junction and then via a new curve to Stratford via Hackney Wick. And also serving as the terminus to the Windrush line, via a new curve to Shoreditch High Street and beyond. In other words, all the recent extensions/new lines in the area running into Broad Street instead of circling around central London.

Ironically, Broad Street would probably have provided a rather more convenient interchange with the Elizabeth Line than Liverpool Street, being sited rather closer to where the Elizabeth line platforms are!

EDIT... In fact I'm going to add a new controversial opinion: The Elizabeth line station that connects Liverpool Street and Moorgate should be renamed Broad Street - and therefore shown as a separate station on tube maps.

 

[HSTEd]

Convenient to pretty much no-one lol..

Well you'd probably end up with more than one stop in central london for those trains, the original terminus and the central complex.

Otherwise, don't most journeys involving London termini involve further travel on the underground or buses regardless?

 

[duffield]

How many through platforms would we need for all existing london terminating trains?

Could we build a super Chatelet-Les-Halles complex somewhere?

If we moved Buckingham Palace brick by brick into Hyde Park (and had it just as a tourist attraction, not a royal residence), I'd say the site freed up is large enough and well located enough for a central station complex. Of course getting the necessary tunnels there through all the existing underground stuff might prove tricky... the platforms might have to be quite deep down!

 

[Horizon22]

How many through platforms would we need for all existing london terminating trains?

Could we build a super Chatelet-Les-Halles complex somewhere?

London is too big for this. You’d also need an east/west and north/south facing one at least. I’d probably say about 16 platforms (in both directions)

And no we couldn’t because not only would it be massively disruptive (obviously) but also inconvenient to most people.

If we moved Buckingham Palace brick by brick into Hyde Park (and had it just as a tourist attraction, not a royal residence), I'd say the site freed up is large enough and well located enough for a central station complex. Of course getting the necessary tunnels there through all the existing underground stuff might prove tricky... the platforms might have to be quite deep down!

Wouldn’t be good for east / west traffic!

 

[HSTEd]

London is too big for this. You’d also need an east/west and north/south facing one at least. I’d probably say about 16 platforms (in both directions)

Precise orientation of the platforms probably isn't that important.
32 through platforms would be able to handle an almost silly number of trains.

And no we couldn’t because not only would it be massively disruptive (obviously) but also inconvenient to most people.

Most of the trains would likely have a stop at a City Thameslink style station in another part of lOndon, in many cases near the old terminal.

Station consolidation has been ongoing for decades both in the Uk and abroad, I don't see any reason not to take it to its logical conclusion.
Eliminating inter station transfers etc for cross London journeys would likely have major benefits.

 

[vuzzeho]

Where would this gigantic 'London Central' be? Maybe Farringdon, or City Thameslink, or Strand, where KCL is rn? Maybe between Moorgate and Bank. We could do consolidations, too. Euston-Kings's Cross-St Pancras Int'l? Maybe just a gigantic Waterloo that swallows Waterloo East. Marylebone/Baker Street? Ok, probably not that one.

Also interesting to consider what this station would need to have - lots and lots of (presumably underground) feeder lines from the old termini, some 25kV OHLE, some 750V DC. Some at UK loading gauge, and some at European - unless they go all European for tunnels and then have dedicated EU loading gauge platforms for HS1 and HS2. You'd need international platforms and facilities, and a LOT of shops.

While it would be super connected inherently, you'd probably also want to extend the Lioness line from the Watford DC line terminus of Euston down to London Central (unless it's that huge Euston idea). You'd also probably want the DLR extended from Bank/Tower Gateway.

 

[Recessio]

EDIT... In fact I'm going to add a new controversial opinion: The Elizabeth line station that connects Liverpool Street and Moorgate should be renamed Broad Street - and therefore shown as a separate station on tube maps.

I reckon it might make more sense to just rename them as both of their stations, like how we already have King's Cross St Pancras. Perhaps we should have "Moor gate-Liverpool Street" and "Barbican-Farringdon".

Then again, if you're going to be renaming one station, I could spawn an entire controversial opinion thread just on station renamings...

 

[Dr_Paul]

Rather than try to wedge a general station into London as it exists today, why not just build a new capital city somewhere central in Britain, with the general station at its centre, and the main, suburban and inner-city mass transit lines properly planned from the start? Problem solved!

 

[duffield]

Rather than try to wedge a general station into London as it exists today, why not just build a new capital city somewhere central in Britain, with the general station at its centre, and the main, suburban and inner-city mass transit lines properly planned from the start? Problem solved!

Indeed. The parliament buildings are falling apart and unfit for purpose, but the plans to renovate are put off again and again due to cost and disruption. A new "administrative capital" should be created in the midlands/north, perhaps not by actually building a new city but by picking an existing one, somewhere with excellent high speed rail connections to London (at present that would be Birmingham I guess, although Leeds and Manchester might have something to say) and parliament and much of the civil service moved there over time. The parliament buildings, emptied, could be stripped of all their asbestos, leaky pipes, and faulty electrics, office partitions etc. and turned into a grade-A tourist attraction, possibly part hotel.

This could even benefit London, which would still be the "economic capital", by taking some pressure off its housing and infrastructure, whilst helping to spread some jobs and wealth around at least a little bit.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Rather than try to wedge a general station into London as it exists today, why not just build a new capital city somewhere central in Britain, with the general station at its centre, and the main, suburban and inner-city mass transit lines properly planned from the start? Problem solved!

I mean, what could possibly go wrong....?

 

[Bald Rick]

Could we build a super Chatelet-Les-Halles complex somewhere?

We have it, albeit a little downmarket. It‘s called Farringdon.

(Not my idea, this was suggested in Modern Railways in about 1988)

 

[popeter45]

We have it, albeit a little downmarket. It‘s called Farringdon.

(Not my idea, this was suggested in Modern Railways in about 1988)

1846 as well

 

[GatwickDepress]

Convenient to pretty much no-one lol..

"May I have your attention please on platform one. This is a platform alteration. The 1302 to Manchester Piccadilly will now depart from platform 64."

 

[Bald Rick]

1846 as well

I‘m not sure Modern Railways was a going concern back then, although Cap’n Deltic may have been known as Midshipman Rocket.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I reckon it might make more sense to just rename them as both of their stations, like how we already have King's Cross St Pancras. Perhaps we should have "Moor gate-Liverpool Street" and "Barbican-Farringdon".

"This is a Circle line train to Hammersmith. This is Barbican-Farringdon. The next stop will be Barbican-Farringdon"

Alternatively, I'd reason that for Farringdon, the actual setup is that the Elizabeth line platforms are at Farringdon, and there's a long corridor linking them to Barbican station, as well as to an exit along Long Lane which is actually far, far closer to Barbican station than to the rest of Farringdon station. It would be much more logical and accurate to make that ticket hall part of Barbican station and explicitly show the corridor in signage as 'passageway to Barbican station'.

Ditto Liverpool Street: The Elizabeth line platforms are arguably physically much more a part of Moorgate station than of Liverpool Street (to which they are only connected by a very long passageway) and it would therefore be far more logical to name that stop 'Moorgate' but indicate that there is a passageway to Liverpool Street.

The Kings Cross - St Pancras underground station name is arguably correct as it is, since it has exits to both mainline stations, and God knows what you'd do with Bank-Monument, which has over time become a mess of platforms often miles away from each other but connected by numerous underground passageways.

The three Canary Wharf stations really ought to be given different names. Ditto the two Bethnal Green stations.

(Is that enough to start your proposed new thread @Recession? )

 

[Uncle Buck]

I reckon it might make more sense to just rename them as both of their stations, like how we already have King's Cross St Pancras. Perhaps we should have "Moor gate-Liverpool Street" and "Barbican-Farringdon".

Then again, if you're going to be renaming one station, I could spawn an entire controversial opinion thread just on station renamings...

"This is a Circle line train to Hammersmith. This is Barbican-Farringdon. The next stop will be Barbican-Farringdon"

No need to change the Tube station names; you could have “Barbican-Farringdon” Thameslink and Elizabeth Line stations serving Barbican and Farringdon, two separate tube stations, just as you could have “Moorgate-Liverpool Street” serving the two stations of those names. I would add “Bond Street-Oxford Circus” as one.

And remember that what is now Charing Cross station used to comprise Charing Cross railway station, Strand tube station (on the Northern Line) and Trafalgar Square tube station (on the Bakerloo Line), while the next tube station along, on the Bakerloo, Circle, District and Northern Lines was then called Charing Cross (it is now Embankment)!

 

[generalnerd]

The three Canary Wharf stations really ought to be given different names. Ditto the two Bethnal Green stations.

Canary Wharf Dock (jubilee) Canary Wharf Central (DLR) and Canary Wharf Plaza/Canary Wharf North (Elizabeth Line)

Weavers Fields (overground) and Bethnal Green (underground)

 

[Class15]

The three Canary Wharf stations really ought to be given different names. Ditto the two Bethnal Green stations.

Edgware Road as well.

 

[generalnerd]

Edgware Road as well.

Hate to be repetitive but I’m on a roll with google maps. Bell Street (Bakerloo) and Edgeware Road (SSL)

This could be another thread…