Forum Topic

Gunnersbury Station upgrade news

The article on the front page about the sale of Chiswick Tower is perhaps making a bit of leap when it assumes that it has been bought for redevelopment but the logic used seems sound to me.We don't even know the identity of the buyer and, as with Premier League football clubs, it has been assumed that being from the Middle East means bottomless pockets of cash but the building is nearly 60 years old so it being bought for long term investment yield is less likely.Before people get too excited though, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind a few points. The Chiswick Business Park development came with a £14million fund for local transport and the baseless promise of a Piccadilly line stop. In the event little of that money was spent locally and much of what was, was spent on setting up controlled parking in the area.Also, while Gunnersbury station is definitely going to see more passengers some will argue it is more important to bring forward the Lionel Road station on the West London Orbital line. Therefore, it cannot be taken for granted that any planning gain from the redevelopment of Chiswick Tower will go to Chiswick. If redevelopment is happening then things might move quickly on this issue. The key points I'll be looking out for are how specific are the pledges on the Gunnersbury station. If there is no cast iron pledge to deliver a second entrance and full accessibility at Gunnersbury station then they probably won't happen.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 523d26 Comments

You are probably right unless there is some wheeze by which they can get a change of use under permitted development as was done with Empire House. As I understand it Hounslow are acting to stop this kind of thing happening but a well financed new owner might have the means to force it through. If this is the case there would be no planning permission required and no chance of improvements at Gunnersbury station.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 516d

That's correct. Thanks for correcting my error.I would assume Chiswick Tower is zoned as commercial and couldn't be converted to residential. The car park never seems to be particularly well used whenever I pass so perhaps the new owner would be willing to accept losing a few spaces to make the changes necessary for the station upgrade.

Mark Evans ● 517d

Mark, I think you meant to say that it can't be pretended that expansion of capacity for the West London Orbital comes WITHOUT huge challenges. Every thing else you have written makes perfect sense.As for any possible development of Chiswick Tower, we don't even know yet whether it will be residential or office. As I understand it Hounslow have acted to prevent such buildings being converted to residential under permitted development so any scheme would have to go through the planning process and the council would be happy to let the building have greater density at the expense of the parking space which should allow a second entrance at the station. An office development might be more complicated. As with Chiswick Business Park, working at Chiswick Tower is attractive for people living on the M4 corridor and, although the car park doesn't seem to ever be close to capacity, I doubt any future scheme would involve the voluntary giving up of bays. That doesn't necessarily rule out a new entrance but it might make it more complicated.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 519d

The Bath Road level crossing was closed in 1965.Not quite the same as the railway line was closed first.http://disused-stations.org.uk/b/bath_road_halt/index.shtml

Will Watson ● 519d

On balance I would always favour doing what is necessary to improve public transport but it can't be pretended that expansion of capacity for the West London Orbital comes with huge challenges.TfL isn't likely to want to consider shutting the northern level crossing on Bollo Lane as it will limit even further access to an area in which it trying to flog over 1,000 flats in the next decade. Traffic is going to be an increasing problem with all the new builds but there doesn't seem to be any option other than sharing it between Bollo Lane and Bollo Bridge Road.On Churchfield Road, it is already a bit of a struggle there for retailers and there is increasing encroachment of residential into shop premises. Closing the level crossing would probably have to come with an acceptance of this process with perhaps an exception for shops around the station. Also access to the south and east for local traffic would have to be via a number of quite narrow residential streets between Churchfield Road and Acton High Street. Rerouting this traffic through already heavily congested Horn Lane and the High Street is probably unworkable.Stepping back, we probably don't have to worry about these issues for now as the West London Orbital Rail line remains a bit of a pipe dream and upgrades at Gunnersbury won't result in more trains running through the station.

Mark Evans ● 519d

Grove Park Bridge appears to date from 1914.  The Chiswick Timeline maps in Turnham Green Terrace are excellent for this sort of query.  It's shown on the 1914 Ordnance Survey map. Curiously it looks like a level crossing on the Geographers' 1938 map, but I think that's an inaccuracy introduced by Phyliss Pearsall in her first A-Z map.

Richard Jennings ● 521d

The National Library of Scotland has a map archive which is a great resource and the 1898 OS map shows a level crossing at Chiswick & Grove Park station while the 1915 OS map shows a bridge.Grove Park Bridge pre-dates Chiswick Bridge which was built in 1933.So at the time the bridge was built the area was a Low Traffic Neighbourhood with no surface route between Chiswick and Mortlake other than the railway.  Maybe there was just the budget for one bridge over the railway so Grove Park Terrace level crossing remained.

Michael Robinson ● 521d

The only level crossing I recall being closed (well before my time) is when Grove Park Bridge was built to replace the level crossing between Grove Park Road and Sutton Court Road. The closest I can find a date is between 1900 and 1950 which is not very precise!I wonder whether the argument for this - I would think very controversial and very expensive construction - was on the basis that there was too much traffic coming through Grove Park heading North West from Chiswick bridge  and the current roads couldn't cope.Restrictions on through traffic through Grove Park back then could have obviated the requirement to build it!

Guy Lambert ● 521d

Time will tell, a lot of business parks had through roads.

Janice Evans ● 521d

Great example of Carbrain.

Paul Campbell ● 521d

The roads through Chiswick Business Park are privately owned. Buses are only allowed with agreement of CBP and even then they stopped buses going through during Covid.There is zero chance the CBP owners would agree to the roads becoming public highway.

Michael Robinson ● 521d

Keeping the northern level crossing open would be sensible and avoid any changes to the two bus routes.  Vehicular traffic across the northern level crossing would then be restricted to buses and access to those developments with entrances off Bollo Lane between the two level crossings, which should be manageable.

Adam ONeill ● 522d

Agree with Peter.

Janice Evans ● 522d

If the northern level crossing is to be kept open (see above), then traffic could go through the Business Park. This would be an improvement anyway as it would reduce traffic in the narrow southern section of Bollo Lane, and at the mini-roundabout with Acton Lane and at the traffic lights with CHR.  As it is, there’s a spacious traffic light controlled junction opposite Gunnersbury station for a few BMWs with squash rackets!

Peter Evans ● 522d

Nothing to stop buses continuing to use that route a la Fishers Lane.

Andrew Jones ● 522d

It would be a bridge for cycles and pedestrians, not motor vehicles.There certainly has been preliminary studies done for the route as the project would mean using freight lines which would need to be electrified and possibly signalling upgrades as well .  These studies aren't detailed designs, however.

Michael Robinson ● 522d

I don't see how else they could resolve the issue at Bollo Lane, as there isn't enough room on the site to create a bridge or tunnel, especially with the large scale development in the area.I wonder whether a feasibility study has been commissioned by the West London Alliance?

Alan Ham ● 522d

If the WLO doubles the frequency of trains using the level crossing they may as well be closed given how few vehicles could use the road because if the time the level crossings are down.Presumably you think that long queues of vehicles going nowhere fast is preferable to telling the drivers they need to use another route?Better to bite the bullet , completely close the crossing and manage alternative routes rather than pretend they are open when they will be closed a substantial time.

Michael Robinson ● 522d

I'm not a car owner, I don't have a need to drive, but I think that closing Bollo Lane to vehicular traffic would be stupid. There's still a significant amount of vehicles going N-S and they'll just explode other, smaller, roads.I know that's the easiest/cheapest way for the orbital to be built, but there's got to be other options.Anyway, funny how the budget is basically the same as fixing the Hammersmith bridge...

Francis Sheehan ● 522d

My assumption is they won't close both level crossings.  Closing the S crossing means access to the back entrance of Chiswick Business Park would be via N section of Bollo Lane, which is a bus route.Even if both level crossings were open, the service frequency of WLO trains using the N crossing and Overground using the S crossing could mean very long delays for any vehicles trying to use Bollo Lane.Same for Churchfield Rd.  May as well close it rather than the entire street being filled with queuing traffic for a few cars to get past in the gaps between trains.

Michael Robinson ● 522d

Of course they will do traffic counts. But remember that one of the major objectives of the West Orbital rail project is to provide sustainable alternatives to cars in West and North West London. Same with the investment in cycle lanes and LTNs. This is the direction of travel now and nobody who is serious and involved in transport believes that cars are a fixed and constant quantity in London.

Paul Campbell ● 522d

Be interesting to do some traffic counts on Bollo Lane now to see how many vehicles will have to find another way of getting to where they want to go if the level crossings are removed. Ditto Churchfield Road. And if both the Bollo Lane crossings are to be closed, then the back entrance to the Business Park would be cut off, together with access to several new residential blocks between the crossings - unless they have everything wheeled over to them on the new ‘cycle bridge’.

Peter Evans ● 522d

This is the latest on status of the project and potential timings if funding were received. In short feasibility work being completed this year with a view to commencing services in early 2030s. It would be such a boon for Churchfield Road to have that level crossing closed.Progress so farWe're working closely with the West London Alliance, our West London borough partners and Network Rail to develop the case for the scheme, explore the engineering and timetable feasibility and identify funding opportunities.Work completed so far shows that a new rail service is the best option to meet our objectives. During 2023 we will finish our initial feasibility work which will identify a recommended route and service frequency for the West London Orbital.Next stepsThe feasibility work will also give us a robust cost estimate and assessment of the scheme benefits - this will help us make recommendations for developing the design and securing approvals needed for implementation.If funding can be identified - and we get all approvals needed for the scheme - then services could start in the early 2030s.

Paul Campbell ● 522d

The budget for West London orbital rail is about £260M (or about the same as opening Hammersmith bridge to motor traffic) and for that money, Bollo lane level crossing would be closed to motor traffic with a foot and cycle bridge built. The level crossing in Churchfield Rd by Acton Central would also be closed.No clue how likely the project is to proceed but last weekend, a new station at Brent Cross West opened and at least that was built with platforms that could be used by West London orbital.

Michael Robinson ● 522d

It'd be great if somehow some money was used to eliminate the level crossings on Bollo Lane. Especially when, in AD 2156, we'll finally have the Orbital using the freight line.

Francis Sheehan ● 522d

I assume the new owners will want to redevelop the space currently used for car parks into office space. The car parks are wasted space and used to be used for station platforms. The big issue with Gunnersbury now is a single island platform with a single stairway but I couldn’t say if a condition of redevelopment could be to restore a platform with a separate stairway.It isn’t helped that the station is owned by Network Rail but operated by TfL so that just complicates any negotiations.

Michael Robinson ● 523d