The Brent Cross Railway

JC116-2016-06 Copy of 2007 Brent Cross Railway document.pdf The Brent Cross Railway June 2007 (re- homed - piecemeal, but unaltered - from a MHTML file into a PDF file in June 2016. Some clarification and editorial text has been added in blue.) http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf? x=523163&y=187157&z=1&sv=brent+terrace&st=1&tl= Brent+Terrace,+NW2&searchp=newsearch.srf&mapp=ne wmap.srf This is a working document that seeks to develop a rapid transit scheme for the Brent Cross area of North London. It is based around and would need major Section 106 finance from the massive redevelopment of the Brent Cross area. This is planned for both sides of the North Circular Road, along its A5 M1 A41 sections, in the London Boroughs of Barnet and (nearly in) Brent. The outline planning permission is [correction 2016: will be ] for a 14 million square feet (1.3m sq m) development of a new town centre at Brent Cross, with 27,000 jobs, 7,500 homes, a greatly-expanded Brent Cross shopping centre, new Thameslink station, bus station, new roads and bridges. (See www.brentcrosscricklewood.com ) These high-density schemes can be quite progressive, in terms of reducing commuting and leisure travel distances, but the road transport needs and car-parking aspects need to be opposed! As of early June 2007, the outline planning application is still awaited (i.e. secret), so Transport 2000 London is getting its retaliation in early. We feel that major new public transport infrastructure is essential. Throwing a few bones, like a new bus station and some bus lanes, is just not adequate. There needs to be a significant car-to-attractive-public-transport shift ( the middle classes do not do buses, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher). At the back of our minds is the major success of the Docklands Light Railway in east London. Unlike some unfortunate vandalised and litter-covered [2016: Croydon] trams, the 1

DLR trains are pristine and relatively clean, because the staff members can supervise them, since the trains run automatically. DLR-type trains are a step up in cost from trams, but we seek to argue for a rapid transit solution that cuts costs without destroying the advantages of light-rail a DLR-lite! The Brent Cross Railway title above is being rather whimsical. The aim at present is to develop an outline specification, involving as many stakeholders as possible, and attempt to get agreement and funding for a detailed transport study, to predict usage levels. The necessary technology to meet those passenger levels must come second to that. Some of the recent cancellations of tram systems around the country have occurred because a technology solution was pushed too hard, too soon, and costs exploded. Some passenger levels on opened tram schemes have also proved over-optimistic. The rest of this Transport 2000 London document describes an off-road system, which we believe may be the right solution to the right problem. Our scheme will certainly be of no use unless the transport study predicts a significant car -to-rapid-transit shift. (It may also mean modest cost savings, in not having to expand bus routes.) The proposed study will have to include the bus-based rapid transit proposal of Barnet and the developers (which has declined and declined in ambition as time has gone by). It will also need to address whether a new 12-car Brent Cross Thameslink station threatens the viability of 8-car Hendon and/or Cricklewood Thameslink stations. The Scheme We would make use of the under-used Midland freight lines (or probably just one of them), and the Dudden Hill [edit: Brent] branch line. Our proposed system would somehow connect Brent Cross Northern Line in the east Cricklewood Thameslink in the south The Hyde (A5), via Hendon Thameslink in the north Harlesden Bakerloo Line and Neasden Jubilee Line in the west,... to the new Brent Cross Thameslink station and the Brent Cross shopping centre. We propose a largely single track off-road light-rail scheme, with ten minute minimum headways each way. 2

The Centre There are two major public transport nodes in the developers plan the Brent Cross shopping centre bus station (with lots of bus stands for terminating buses), and the new Brent Cross Thameslink station (with just bus stops outside [edit: stands as well, now]). Both of these need serving by the BCR (Brent Cross Railway). The intention of Barnet is to approve a new High Street bridge over the North Circular Road ( NCR ) composed of four [sic] traffic lanes, two of them bus lanes. Only a tram or guided bus-way rapid transit solution would find this new High Street bridge useful, and we acknowledge that possibility. Since we favour an off-road solution (if passenger levels are high enough), we oppose the demolition of the present Templehof Avenue road bridge across the NCR, which would be replaced in the current plan. We believe the new High Street bridge must be built further east (presumably east of the Holiday Inn located south of the NCR). [edit: without implying use of Whitefields estate land, with its various freeholders.] Broadly speaking, the proposed redevelopment south of the NCR is made up of: housing and a replacement supermarket towards the east (on land available soon [edit: The developers said soon ]) offices and the new station to the west (on land available later [edit: The developers said later ]). We do not therefore worry too much about moving the High Street bridge nearer to the housing [edit: for somewhat unclear reasons]. One result may be to move the new bus station north of the NCR further towards the west, which would suit us rather well. Since the capital cost of a light-rail scheme can easily mean it never happens, we need to capture all the current assets we can for our scheme. The Templehof Avenue bridge over the NCR is one of the crown jewels that we want retained. It can clearly provide a double-track off-road route, between the new train station [edit: and southern bus station] and the new [northern] bus station. 3

The East Brent Cross Northern Line is the nearest tube station to the shopping centre. Instead of driving, how many people, say from Golders Green or Edgware, currently travel on the tube to there, in order to go Brent Cross shopping? Only the really committed! There are plans for a better bus connection to the shopping centre, but that seems the case of planners providing and people ignoring. It would still be thought an unattractive proposition by many people so they would continue to drive. We aim for a major improvement that would change those views. As fortune would have it, Brent Cross Northern Line has existing space on the embankment for bypass tracks, outside the two present running lines (with the island platform in the middle). This is another one of the crown jewels we wish to use. We propose new BCR (remember what that stands for?) track to the west of the Northern Line tracks, at the same level. The BCR platform would be on the western side of that, at least partly supported on the existing formation. Access would be from the intermediate level of the current staircase (tunnelling under the northbound Northern Line track). A BCR passenger lift would also be needed, possibly alongside an extra staircase, if the BCR always required extra entrances independent of the Underground stations. As a suggestion out on a limb, it might be possible to carry out infrequent heavy maintenance of BCR trains at the Underground depot at Golders Green, if full-size vehicles could reach there, towed by battery locomotives. (Just a thought!) A simple transfer (via the subway) would, for the first time, be an attractive proposition, in order to travel to Brent Cross shopping centre and elsewhere. The BCR single track would go north, descending from the embankment, and turn west just before the NCR. The plan is already to close the lower slip road from the NCR at that point, so BCR trains would run unobstructed, under the stilts of the Brent Cross A41 roundabout, and head west, presumably to the Templehof Avenue BCR bridge. One extra station in the new housing and rebuilt Tesco supermarket area would be appropriate, possibly under the shifted-east High Street NCR bridge. (An alternative route, after the A41 roundabout, is described later.) [edit: Another alignment is to keep the BCR at ground level, with a separate entrance immediately to the west of the London Underground road bridge on Highfield Avenue.] 4

The South Access from Cricklewood Thameslink station is seen by the Brent Cross developers as important, if only because the new station further north is still years away. We propose a BCR solution, not limited-stop buses. We need to describe the current north-south Midland Main Line through the area. From east to west, there are two slow lines, two fast lines, and two freight lines. The latter start at a junction with the slow lines north of Hendon, then pass over the fast lines, and run parallel through Cricklewood and West Hampstead stations, before merging with the fast lines just before the Hampstead tunnels. Just north of Cricklewood station, there is a triangular junction on the freight lines, which forms the Midland Dudden Hill branch to West London [edit: via Brent, and now to the proposed HS2 and Great Western Main Line/Crossrail stations at Old Oak Common]. All this freight infrastructure allowed the coal from Derbyshire and the bricks from Bedfordshire to reach much of London. However, nowadays, the recent Network Rail Freight Route Utilisation Strategy foresees little expansion in the very modest use of these various Midland freight tracks. Transport 2000 London gives its full support to plans for freight expansion in London. Transport for London has lobbied Network Rail by stating: The London Plan forecasts that demand for goods and services to 2026 will increase by between 12% and 15%. Rail could help reduce this growing environmental footprint of London by playing a greater role in the primary distribution of retail goods. This will require large-scale development of suitable modern facilities, which to date have had difficulties in gaining approval in the London area. A new Cricklewood freight terminal, and a relocated waste [transfer] terminal, is in the Brent Cross development plan. Transport 2000 London seeks to support such freight expansion [edit: without commenting about on-site waste processing]. However, we feel we can promote our BCR rapid transit proposals on some of the same railway alignments, without deflecting from that aim. An off-road rapid transit system could rip up certain tracks to provide a rubber-tyre solution share double tracks with freight trains, or single-up certain freight lines (at least at pinch-points ) and create separate BCR-only single tracks alongside, grabbing extra land for double BCR track where needed to provide the level of service. The transport study must examine all three of these options. A light-rail train uses one-third the energy that a rubber-tyre bus uses (because of reduced friction). A train lasts three times as long as a bus (maybe forty years). Unfortunately, a train costs a lot more than a bus (and needs collision-resistance if it shares track 5

with grown-up trains). There are various guided bus-ways in this country. Furthermore, the north-east of England shares some passenger light-rail with freight heavy rail on the same track. However, we believe our BCR might well use driverless trains, which cannot be used on shared track. In fact, we believe we might want actual DLR trains, supplied and operated by the same franchise as the DLR in East London. This gives us the DLR quality of service, as long as we can achieve it at low-enough cost. It is all proven technology, and there is plenty of experience in London to call on. The implication of the DLR BCR (work that out) is that we want to take over one of the freight lines on at least part of the Midland Main Line, and on the Dudden Hill branch. But we believe we can do this and still promote the freight plans for the area! Back to Cricklewood. It might be possible to run an off-road rapid transit on railway land to the east of the Midland Main Line, although that would not be popular with the planners of the future train depot [edit: now built] to the north and east of Cricklewood station. Instead, we suggest sole use of the western-most freight track, south to Cricklewood station. Our single-platform BCR station there can be next to Cricklewood Lane (at B&Q!) Disabled access is possible at low cost. This is our southern BCR terminus. For now. In a changed financial environment (we can hope), an extension south on the same alignment to three more BCR stations is feasible: Mill Lane West Hampstead (12-car) Thameslink station (and the Jubilee Line and North London Line Overground and possibly Metropolitan Line and Great Central new platforms) Finchley Road (O2 Centre). This extension south would never be possible on the eastern side on the main line. While trying to offer low-cost suggestions, it seems unavoidable that our (single) BCR track north from Cricklewood station would need to rise on viaduct, to pass over both arms of the Dudden Hill branch triangle. If you are following, it will not have escaped your attention that we might have our BCR trains on both sides of the Midland Main Line to the east at Brent Cross, and to the west at Cricklewood and further south (and for the Dudden Hill branch). There are various possibilities to link them. Midland trains used to run on a 180-degree reversing line under the southern-most of the 6

Midland Main Line brick arches. This is now used by the west-bound NCR (with the massive NCR flyover running high overhead). It is already proposed to open up extra arches further north for the realigned NCR and M1 slip roads, so the old arch could become available for railway use again. However, there is no cheap and easy way to reach that railway arch (if you want the PC World retail estate [on the A5, to the south-east of Staples Corner] to remain untouched). The Brent Cross Thameslink station is to be built just north of the Dudden Hill branch triangle. It is proposed to build a new road bridge over the Midland Main Line, south of the new station, to join the A5. A BCR (double-track) bridge could be built to the south of the road bridge, over the Midland Main Line. The two BCR tracks would then run under the eastern end of the road bridge, and into the eastern side of Brent Cross Thameslink station. (Incidentally, maybe the latter only needs four, rather than five, main line platforms [edit: as indeed, is now proposed in 2016].) The waste terminal and freight terminal, both planned for the western side of the Midland Main Line, would then have both freight lines available for their own use, at least on a short section, if our BCR trains ran on this eastern route. Alternatively, the two BCR tracks could pass under the western end of the new road bridge, and possibly turn right separately, to form the northern edge and the southern edge of the Thameslink station concourse. That is, the BCR platforms would be at right angles to, and on top of, the Thameslink ones. Either way, after the Thameslink station, the BCR tracks would run north and then turn... [east], just south of the NCR, or could be run directly through the planned commercial area. 7

The West The Dudden Hill freight branch connects the Midland Main Line to the Great Central Main Line at Neasden and the West Coast Main Line at Harlesden. It then joins the North London Line in Park Royal [edit: at Old Oak Common], which in turn crosses the Great Western Birmingham line with no connection at North Acton, followed by a facing connection to the Great Western Reading line, and [onwards also] further south [towards Richmond, and, as noted by the London Mayor, Hounslow]. Transport 2000 London proposes taking over the northern track on the north side of the Cricklewood triangle, and then the northern-most of the two Dudden Hill tracks as far as Harlesden, which would be our terminus (for now). Our track would branch off from our southbound Cricklewood line, just north of the Dudden Hill triangle, and immediately descend under the A5 road, and head west. There are very low traffic levels on the Dudden Hill branch, and we believe that singling parts of this Network Rail line is possible without constraining growth of freight. This would be the time to replace the semaphore signalling on the remaining track, to allow two-way running. [edit: Even in 2016 it is still semaphore signalled and unelectrified.] The only complication is the south-to-west freight connection at Neasden, which crosses our BCR line. Spending significant money here is unavoidable, unless a fool-proof and workable flat crossover could be agreed. London Concrete s terminal at Neasden would be unaffected by the BCR. It is not immediately clear if Taylor s Lane oil-fired power station needs a routine rail connection. [edit: The connection has been severed, but is replaceable.] Our BCR stations might be at Gladstone Park (Parkside) Neasden Jubilee Line (on Neasden Lane) Taylor s Lane (for Neasden Temple, possibly [which might fund it]) Harlesden Bakerloo and Overground (at the Mordaunt Road / Acton Lane T- junction). An attractive but expensive diversion would be to curve right, parallel to Neasden Jubilee Line station, run under the Great Central NCR girder bridge, pass to an Ikea and Tesco station on the alignment of the Grand Union Canal feeder (the station would arrive flatpacked [edit: which is a 2007 joke]), run back over the NCR next to the footbridge (we said this was expensive), and rejoin the Dudden Hill branch before Taylor s Lane. This is not necessarily pie-in-the-sky Ikea generates a huge amount of road traffic, not all needed for carting off cardboard boxes. We can claim this western arm of the BCR is a viable public transport alternative for NCR traffic in North-West London. Beyond Harlesden would lie further into the future. 8

One track on the bridge over the West Coast Main Line is another of our crown jewels that we would want for the BCR. The huge Park Royal area has major firms that might contribute to bringing the BCR into the estate. A final terminus might be alongside the new Park Royal Central Line platforms, about to be built as part of the existing Piccadilly Line station. The cheapest way there would be via a short extra track after the Dudden Hill branch finishes, parallel to the North London Line, and then turn right, down to the Great Western Birmingham line, into North Acton Central Line station and on to the Park Royal Central-and-Piccadilly-Lines terminus. There is always a chance that North Acton Central Line [station] might move east, after Park Royal Central Line [station] is built, for a joint North London Line Overground station. [edit: It wasn t, so it hasn t. The Old Oak Common development changes all this, anyway.] Our little BCR trains might, at a pinch, be able to take over one of the North-London-Lineto-Great-Western-Reading-line connection tracks. They could then squeeze into Acton Main Line Crossrail station. To spell that out Brent Cross commercial area gains a Heathrow Airport connection! [edit: There will still be a suitable totally-unused platform at Acton Main Line Crossrail station, when it opens. That is now more likely to be used as a London Overground terminus running off the North London Line, rather than by any BCR.] Another route in Park Royal after crossing the West Coast Main Line would be via a Central Middlesex Hospital and Asda station, in what is forever called, rather overoptimistically, Central Park Royal. There is then a viable route for a single track to run mid-way between Coronation Road and Cumberland Avenue, and under Coronation Road where the Guinness trains used to carry the beer on to the Great Western line. Our trains then still terminate at Park Royal Central-and-Piccadilly-Lines station. [edit: The Central Line platforms have never been built there, although a Park Royal Crossrail station is possible on the same site, if a Crossrail branch from Old Oak Common to High Wycombe is approved by the Mayor.] 9

The North The London Borough of Barnet has always associated the West Hendon area with the Brent Cross and Cricklewood development zone further south. A major housing scheme is planned to the west of the A5 there. No doubt West Hendon s ruin was partly caused by Brent Cross developments since the 1970 s. To support regeneration, we believe our Brent Cross Railway should reach the West Hendon area. There are various possible routes. There is space for a line to run north on the eastern side of the M1 motorway, to a permanent terminus near Hendon Thameslink station, but the cost would be high. We prefer taking over the western-most Midland freight line again, running from the bus station area of the Brent Cross shopping centre. This alignment could be reached by crossing the M1 roundabout and passing under one of the brick arches under the Midland Main Line (there are a lot of them!) Alternatives further north, like the River Brent, or Brent Park Road, seem virtually impossible. Optimistically, instead of immediately joining the freight line, we suggest a major narrowing of the A5, immediately north of the NCR flyover, and an (expensive) BCR station on viaduct on the eastern side of the road, using some of the land released. A pedestrian crossing over the A5 here would reconnect the two sides of this very bleak section of road, and would make the station accessible from the industrial estate and the southern part of West Hendon housing to the west. Our track would then at last join the old freight line, to our next station at Hendon Thameslink [station], where there would be low-cost disabled access (unlike the rest of the station). We would then continue north, and turn west, just south of Colin Gardens. We would seek the views of residents here regarding a station in the area (given that this is one of the few places where our track would be on a completely new alignment). The Hyde (A5) commercial area includes several possible development sites (particularly [if] a rapid transit station [is provided]) and lots of scope for reducing road traffic demand to the retail parks. We believe a station roughly opposite Kingsbury Road is a possibility, followed by an (expensive) viaduct south, alongside the A5, crossing that road at the Silk Stream river, to a terminus in the West Hendon housing redevelopment area. We favour this route over crossing the A5 much further south, possibly using part of the A5 flyover, and reaching the West Hendon housing area by a shorter route. This is because it misses out Hendon Thameslink station and the commercial area further north. 10

(Replacement image) The Service Given the two destinations of the Brent Cross shopping centre bus station, and the new Brent Cross Thameslink station (next to the main office development), we want all our BCR trains to run to both. We believe that our four points of the compass should divide into two services, using a central joint route, and with no reversals. We have justified the northern route arriving from the north, but we seem to have the other three routes arriving from the south. This is undesirable! Our solution is a second, single-track crossing of the NCR by our eastern branch, somewhere between the shifted-east High Street bridge, and the A41 Brent Cross roundabout. There is already a proposal to build a new pedestrian-only [edit: Eastern Lands] bridge over the NCR in this area. We would expand this bridge, to make it wider and more supervised, since such pedestrian bridges can be unattractive and give a feeling of insecurity. [edit: There have been many efforts to add cycling as well (unsourced comment).] This then allows the possibility of a Shopping Centre East BCR station, and moving the new bus station to the western end of the shopping centre, in line with Templehof Avenue bridge, and the best place to start our northern branch to Hendon. The Brent Cross Railway branches from the west (Dudden Hill) and the south (Cricklewood) would unite into a double track at Brent Cross Thameslink station, cross the North Circular Road on the old Templehof Avenue road bridge, and run into a double track station at Shopping Centre West and Brent Cross Bus Station. They would then go their separate ways, towards the north (The Hyde and West Hendon) and the east (Brent Cross Northern Line). The latter track could pass east along the southern edge of the current shopping centre, so the new shops would be built around it (with space for a second track later), and there would be excellent access to the stations from both western and eastern ends of the shopping centre. Station access would also be required when the centre was closed. If Golders Green (or even east London) was a possible heavy maintenance location, the central area could house the main stabling depot (although west of the Harlesden terminus, in Park Royal, is another possibility). Which south or west branch served which north or east branch would be determined by the operational ease of running the services, and by the anticipated through-journey demand. There could be a third, central, track at the bus station (like at Canary Wharf!) for flexibility. All trains would be of one DLR car (two articulated halves). Stations would have passive provision for longer platforms needed for a second car. Some might allow the possibility 11

of a second platform later. Instead, some might permanently have one platform, for lower cost and easier disabled access, but with space for two simultaneous trains on that platform face, one in each direction (it was a good enough design for Brunel to use quite often!) A ten-minute service, each way, on a single track might be difficult, but better than no railway at all. Double track, where possible and affordable, would clearly ease the operational headaches. The Docklands Light Railway has built up over the years from one-car to three-car trains. Brent Cross is a more mature area, right from the start. Anticipated demand depends on the transport study results! (end) 12