How feasible is a West Hampstead Interchange station?

[cle]

Yes, thats what service providers do all the time.
I could just as easily say you are projecting your own impression of the area onto others that know nothing except what they read in the press (which isnt going to be telling them London is safe as that isnt a story)

I have made that change for over 10 years of my life, cumulatively, and grew up a mile from there. It's not an impression. It's a fact. That is not equal which what one reads in the Daily Mail in credence, and thus in action. I don't care about others' paranoia or irrational fear - nor clearly to the powers that be - otherwise this would have been advanced to coddle the small, mean people for whom you shill.

And this is not a true service provider in a commercial, competitive sense. That's disingenuous. Rail companies don't build new passageways because of an aggy tweet!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A quick look at the crime stats for the West End Lane area (focal point for the 3 stations) - show 7 crimes per 1000 people , - a bit below the average for the London area and certainly nothing for Karen on Facebook or similar to get aerated over. To look at local areas , surprise - surprise , Kilburn is very much worse. (and there are very much worse local areas in London , and dare I say it outside London)

The crime maps of London , showed for example that the no 1 (in the honour class) , used to be Finsbury Park station and immediate area.

 

[adrock1976]

I recall reading somewhere that when the London Extension of the ex Great Central Railway was built, the former Metropolitain Railway would only support the route south of Harrow-on-the-Hill on the condition that the GC did not build any intermediate stations.

Should if an interchange on the present day Chiltern lines at West Hampstead is built (unlikely), unless the original act that authorised the construction of the London Extension of the GC has been repealed, then an amendment would have to be inserted in the section relating to no intermediate stations with the additional text something like "with the exception at West Hampstead so as to provide an interchange with other railways/lines".

 

[Bald Rick]

I recall reading somewhere that when the London Extension of the ex Great Central Railway was built, the former Metropolitain Railway would only support the route south of Harrow-on-the-Hill on the condition that the GC did not build any intermediate stations.

Should if an interchange on the present day Chiltern lines at West Hampstead is built (unlikely), unless the original act that authorised the construction of the London Extension of the GC has been repealed, then an amendment would have to be inserted in the section relating to no intermediate stations with the additional text something like "with the exception at West Hampstead so as to provide an interchange with other railways/lines".

To build a station on the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead would need a Transport and Works Act Order, which would have provisions to resolve any issues in the Act.

 

[Meerkat]

I have made that change for over 10 years of my life, cumulatively, and grew up a mile from there. It's not an impression. It's a fact. That is not equal which what one reads in the Daily Mail in credence, and thus in action. I don't care about others' paranoia or irrational fear - nor clearly to the powers that be - otherwise this would have been advanced to coddle the small, mean people for whom you shill.

And this is not a true service provider in a commercial, competitive sense. That's disingenuous. Rail companies don't build new passageways because of an aggy tweet!

Thank you for proving my point. You are a local and you know the truth, and are projecting that onto other people.
When you are trying to sell things it doesn't matter what the truth is, its what the customers think that matter. You can either change what they think (tricky in this instance) or adapt to negate their concerns.
Also another point is that locals know what the risks and non-risks are - its a different world for outsiders. Plenty of instances on this forum of locals/regulars saying "never had any trouble" about an area outsiders are wary of.

Anyway security isn't the only reason longer distance travellers don't want to wander around the streets between stations, there is also wayfinding, weather and luggage.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thank you for proving my point. You are a local and you know the truth, and are projecting that onto other people.
When you are trying to sell things it doesn't matter what the truth is, its what the customers think that matter. You can either change what they think (tricky in this instance) or adapt to negate their concerns.
Also another point is that locals know what the risks and non-risks are - its a different world for outsiders. Plenty of instances on this forum of locals/regulars saying "never had any trouble" about an area outsiders are wary of.

Anyway security isn't the only reason longer distance travellers don't want to wander around the streets between stations, there is also wayfinding, weather and luggage.

In the overall context of a typical 'unfamiliar' journey I am completely confused as to how a change en route is any different from what happens at the final destination. Presumably the passenger alights from their final train and then has to step out into the streets and wayfind to their objective, still at the mercy of the weather, and still schlepping the heavy luggage that always seems to be an accompaniment on such treks.

I suppose that there are some individuals who would always be met at final destination and/or picked up or taxied from the station.

 

[MarkyT]

In the overall context of a typical 'unfamiliar' journey I am completely confused as to how a change en route is any different from what happens at the final destination. Presumably the passenger alights from their final train and then has to step out into the streets and wayfind to their objective, still at the mercy of the weather, and still schlepping the heavy luggage that always seems to be an accompaniment on such treks.

I suppose that there are some individuals who would always be met at final destination and/or picked up or taxied from the station.

Even there you have to go out of the station to a pick-up bay or taxi rank, which by definition is 'on the street' except at some large terminals where cabs were originally dealt with under the main station roof, although in most (all?) cases the rank has been relocated outside and the cab road abolished in favour of additional platforms, pedestrian circulation areas or retail/refreshment units.

 

[cle]

Thank you for proving my point. You are a local and you know the truth, and are projecting that onto other people.
When you are trying to sell things it doesn't matter what the truth is, its what the customers think that matter. You can either change what they think (tricky in this instance) or adapt to negate their concerns.
Also another point is that locals know what the risks and non-risks are - its a different world for outsiders. Plenty of instances on this forum of locals/regulars saying "never had any trouble" about an area outsiders are wary of.

Anyway security isn't the only reason longer distance travellers don't want to wander around the streets between stations, there is also wayfinding, weather and luggage.

Except that this isn’t business. These principles about customers and perception is reality don’t apply with fixed infrastructure. We’re not trying to sell changing at West Hampstead to furtive out of towners.

People can ‘think’ whatever about London but these civils were built for the most frequent users. Even with the current density, an interchange wasn’t built - and it’s never been busier with LO and TL services. And will still never happen for the convenience of occasional Luton Airport changes.

But guess what, things in Tunbridge Wells are indeed intended for those people. Experience design and utilitarianism at work.

As a Londoner I don’t expect things to cater to my preferences and prejudices when I go elsewhere either.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Also another point is that locals know what the risks and non-risks are - its a different world for outsiders. Plenty of instances on this forum of locals/regulars saying "never had any trouble" about an area outsiders are wary of.

Yes, but I've never had problems or experienced the consequences of "risks" when I've alighted at stations in areas I don't know.

 

[mr_jrt]

A long, long, long time ago I did some crayoning. The date on this is just when Google upgraded things, the original was probably about 10 years old at that point, so probably drawn as things were around 2006. I have a few of these and it's quite interesting seeing how things change as the satellite photography updates over the years.

West Hampstead Interchange – Google My Maps

Some ideas I came up with a long, long, long time ago...

www.google.com

 

[Meerkat]

In the overall context of a typical 'unfamiliar' journey I am completely confused as to how a change en route is any different from what happens at the final destination. Presumably the passenger alights from their final train and then has to step out into the streets and wayfind to their objective, still at the mercy of the weather, and still schlepping the heavy luggage that always seems to be an accompaniment on such treks.

I suppose that there are some individuals who would always be met at final destination and/or picked up or taxied from the station.

Both the start and end of the journey can be at familiar places, or people get met, or they are in the centre of a city - which generally feels more familiar and safer than a random inner suburb.
The concept would be an interconnection ring to attract the medium/longer distance traveller that would normally drive round the M25 and doesn't want to traipse across London on the Underground. 'Leave the station and wander about the streets of a random suburb' isn't going to sell that.
Of course the incentive to provide that is less now the Underground is less crowded - TfL very much doesn't want to put people off transferring via the Underground now!

 

[Dr Hoo]

Both the start and end of the journey can be at familiar places, or people get met, or they are in the centre of a city - which generally feels more familiar and safer than a random inner suburb.

I suppose that that is just a difference in perception between us.

I have felt far more 'unsafe' walking across the centres of Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, for example, than I have ever done changing at West Hampstead. (I worked in North London for a while and am thus fairly familiar with it.) And ironically the one time that I was robbed was actually inside an interchange station, so I don't see them as offering much benefit or protection.

 

[cle]

I suppose that that is just a difference in perception between us.

I have felt far more 'unsafe' walking across the centres of Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, for example, than I have ever done changing at West Hampstead. (I worked in North London for a while and am thus fairly familiar with it.) And ironically the one time that I was robbed was actually inside an interchange station, so I don't see them as offering much benefit or protection.

Those passageways inside Willesden Junction in the 90s, whew! Even the overpass at Clapham Junction were a bit dodgy at times, and certainly pretty antisocial with the millions of school-kids. And as for the Stratford or Lewisham of old...

Crossing a road in Hampstead is hardly the Warriors. The road safety/congestion/JL crossing is far more of an issue.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Crossing a road in Hampstead is hardly the Warriors

Part quote of the day - ! (yes - NW6 is not 14th St / Union Sq or 96th St as seen in the film)

Massive increases in CCTV etc - on stations / trains and in the public realm have very much changed the vibe and ambience of the areas mentioned since the mid 1990's - yes Willesden used to be bad , as did Wembley Central - but whilst West Hampstead has always been quite / very decent - the aforementioned areas have seen considerable regeneration and improvement.

 

[leytongabriel]

Err wasn't there some discussion a while back about Chiltern having a stop at West Hampstead, not a new interchange but to facilitate interchange with the Jubilee line?

 

[JonathanH]

Err wasn't there some discussion a while back about Chiltern having a stop at West Hampstead, not a new interchange but to facilitate interchange with the Jubilee line?

There is some reference to a proposal here https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...st-and-stopping-sections.168542/#post-3599764 but as pointed out in this thread and others any opportunity appears to have passed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Err wasn't there some discussion a while back about Chiltern having a stop at West Hampstead, not a new interchange but to facilitate interchange with the Jubilee line?

But it would be a new interchange, ie delivering an 8nterchanbe that doesn’t happen now.

Also, not possible to build without extensive residential demolition.