Forum Topic

Chiswick Tower Latest - Good news for Gunnersbury?

Just trying to understand the significance of the latest news in the Chiswick Tower development. Am I being too optimistic in thinking that the postponement of the housing to be built on the car park sites and the continuing commitment of the developer to facilitating making the station step-free is a positive thing? It will presumably be much easier to do the work on making the platforms step free if they are not in the middle of a huge construction project? 

Jeremy Parkinson ● 579d66 Comments

Is it too much to hope that Gunnersbury Station could be put back to having four platforms to handle the (increasing?) number of passengers more safely?

Peter Evans ● 578d

I think it is positive in that postponing development on the car parks means it is up to TfL/Network Rail to define plans for how they want to use the car park space whether this is step-free access, a Wellesley Rd entrance or the most radical change to re-instate a platform where a car park is at the moment.Step-free access won't address the issue of overcrowding on the single set of steps to the platform. Outline plans were previously produced for a Wellesley Rd entrance which took space from the car park to the W of the tracks for a walkway and bridge across the London-bound tracks to the S end of the platform.

Michael Robinson ● 578d

It wouldn't need 4 platforms... 2 separate platforms with 2 separate walkways should address overcrowding. The previous additional platform was for the now defunct connection to the Hounslow loop line which went through where Chiswick Village is now.

Michael Robinson ● 578d

That's what I was hoping would be the case. It looks like the developer is making sure it doesn't get the blame if the Gunnersbury upgrade doesn't happen. Ball seems to be in TfL/Network Rail's court.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 577d

If you look at my London websiteit reports that the Gilettefactory is becoming a state ofthe arts filming studios creating3000 jobs and more after hounslow council gave it the  green lighton Monday. Transport is talked about with increase needed.

Julian Pavey ● 577d

The Gillette scheme's local station Syon Lane is on the West London Orbital Route so that should give extra impetus to that project. I am assuming any prospect of reactivating the connection from Gunnersbury to Kew Bridge has gone due to development over the route that it took?

Mark Evans ● 576d

Chiswick Village mansion blocks were built over the former route of the tracks between the District line and Hounslow loop line so no chance of it being brought back.The District line already has branches to Wimbledon, Richmond, Ealing, (Kensington Olympia too if you want to count that).  Yet another District line branch going over the Hounslow loop would reduce service to the existing District line branches.There would be no point of the link for the Overground given WLO would be a link to the Hounslow loop anyway.

Michael Robinson ● 576d

What would be useful would be a two-level interchange station at Strand-on-the-Green where passengers could transfer from the Hounslow Loop to the District and North London lines.

Richard Greenhough ● 576d

Zero chance of a station at SOTG.WLO plans show a station at Lionel Rd near Brentford stadium and I assume land has been safeguarded for this.WLO plans also show a link to the Overground service at Kew Bridge station.  My guess is that some trains may originate or terminate there rather than run the entire route.Another aspect of WLO that will affect the local area will be closure of level crossings on Bollo Lane and Churchfield Rd, Acton.  Not formerly confirmed yet but a safe bet it will happen if WLO happens.

Michael Robinson ● 576d

Isn't there scope for more advanced technology to make a difference to wait times at level crossings? One of the many problems with shutting Bollo Lane is that traffic is being directed by Sat Nav down this way approaching North Chiswick from the west. Last weekend coming off the A4 I was sent up the NCR and onto Gunnersbury Lane. This happens quite regularly. As Bollo Bridge Road is probably too narrow to handle much extra traffic this flow will be directed back to Chiswick High Road.  This is a bit of a parochial point as there are far bigger issues. Are TfL likely to do this when it will impact the value of all the flats they are about to start building?

Andrew OSullivan ● 575d

No, there isn't new technology for level crossings.  Laws of physics come into play for the stopping distance of trains.  The general approach over many years has been to remove level crossings and close roads where this is practical.If WLO happens,  there would be a minimum of 4 trains per hour in each direction across 2 level crossings about 50m apart so one or other or both crossings would be down so often the road would be de facto closed anyway.My guess is the southern level crossing used by the Overground today would be closed and the northern level  crossing which would be used for WLO would be kept there  so the bus service through Chiswick Business Park could still use this route and there would still be access from Bollo Lane to the couple of buildings between the level crossings (as Chiswick Business Park is private land).I'd imagine the value of flats and houses along Bollo Lane will increase as most people think living on a quieter road is generally more desirable than living on a busy road with lots of vehicles driving through.

Michael Robinson ● 574d

I remember at the time campaigning for a usable route for traffic to pass through the Business Park site. That would have taken pressure off the narrow part of Bollo Lane, the junction in front of Chiswick Park tube and the traffic lights with CHR, but although a way through was built, it was not to be for public use.  If the southern Bollo Lane level crossing is to be closed, then opening up this route to through traffic would be even more useful and avoid more traffic using Acton Lane and local streets. Ideally, if they close the Bollo Lane crossing, we should have an elegant ramp and road bridge like was provided back when in Grove Park, or at least a usable cycle and pedestrian crossing/bridge.

Peter Evans ● 574d

I think there is zero chance of Chiswick Business Park allowing the route through the business park to be used for general traffic. It provides no benefit for their business.They even closed the route through the park to buses during the pandemic.I also think there is zero chance of a road bridge or tunnel being provided across Bollo lane crossings - it will be a pedestrian/cycle bridge and Bollo Lane will be closed to motor traffic.WLO will cost huge sums of money as it is and they aren't going to further add to the budget of a rail project to make it easier to drive.

Michael Robinson ● 574d

Michael is probably right about the business park site being closed to general traffic but there may be a deal to be done on bus routes, particularly if the level crossings are closed.However, he is wrong about technology not being considered as an option. A quick search showed up multiple examples from across the world and the UK in particular to reduce wait times at crossing. Here's a link to one but there are many more.https://www.iotm2mcouncil.org/iot-library/news/connected-transportation-news/purple-ai-monitors-level-crossings/TfL needs to sell the flats along Bollo Lane and if they were to shut the level crossings then the access problems to the site would be a huge disincentive. The right turn into Bollo Lane from Gunnersbury Lane is already regularly backed up due to the regular flow of people in and out of Acton Town station and, due to the proposed 3,000 population boost in the area, this isn't going to get any better. Ealing Council have tried and failed with various solutions to this issue. The only other remaining route in to the development is Bollo Bridge Road which narrows effectively to single file at the Acton Lane end so doesn't have the capacity to carry much more traffic.Technology should be enable a higher number of trains cross the roads at this point and TfL has a huge economic incentive to give it a try. Even if it doesn't do much to solve the problem, there are going to be queues somewhere else anyway if you close the level crossing so it achieves little.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 572d

I read somewhere that the level crossings at Sheen and Mortlake are closed to road traffic for about 45 minutes in every hour for most of the day, and while there’s quite a pile up of vehicles and people, this seems to be accepted.

Peter Evans ● 572d

Jeremy, the article link references technology to better detect incidents at the level crossing.  There is no reference to this technology increasing the time a crossing is up under normal operation when there are no incidents.Better detection of incidents may mean a crossing would be left up when it otherwise would have been taken down or taken down when it would have been left up and that may save some people from being killed or injured but this is improving how exceptions are handled, it doesn't increase the throughput of cars at the crossing during normal operation.I don't know the car ownership policies that will be applied to residents of the new developments but in common with lots of new developments, I wouldn't be surprised if they are largely 'car free' with minimal parking space provided.While driving to Gunnersbury Lane may be top of your concerns, it would be a mistake to assume that it will also be a concern for the vast majority of residents who won't own cars.You also appear to think that having a busy road with lots of traffic passing outside increases the desirability of a house or flat.  You'd better tell developers who have been promoting cul-de-sacs for decades.It's another classic case of 'carbrain' on your part.

Michael Robinson ● 572d

The difference here is there are 2 level crossings a short distance from each other.I don't know if they would let a vehicle proceed through one level crossing if the other level crossing is down.  If so, the vehicle throughput may be considerably reduced compared to a single level crossing.

Michael Robinson ● 572d

I guess the new ‘TfL’ and other South Acton (‘home of the tower block’) residents will enjoy using all the proposed ground floor cafes, restaurants and local shops and workspaces shown in the imaginative architects’ imagery of the new development, so they won’t need to travel much further afield.  They could equally swarm over the new elegant elliptical cycle and pedestrian ramp/bridge to across the railway to reach the attractions of Chiswick High Road, or they could use the exciting new rail service from nearby South Acton station to conveniently do their shopping in, er,  Cricklewood or Hounslow, though I’m sure the Sainsburys and Waitrose and other delivery vans will soon find a way of getting to them. Meanwhile, the many delivery cargo bikes going to and from what’s left of the Acton Industrial Estate will have to find other routes. I guess we’ll need another elegant elliptical cycle/pedestrian ramp/bridge to get over the railway track at Acton Central if that level crossing is also going to be taken out of service.

Peter Evans ● 572d

Yes, should the WLO plans progress I fully expect they will contain a walking and cycling bridge over the Bollo Lane level crossings.As I said, its a rail project.  They won't be spending 10s or perhaps 100s of £M making it easier to drive.Expect the level crossing at Churchfield Rd Acton to be closed as well.

Michael Robinson ● 572d

I recall in many of the early WLO proposal and consultation documents, the Bollo Lane level crossings were flagged as being a significant and costly problem. This now seems to have been replaced by ‘who needs ‘em?’!With so much pressure on public spending at the moment, particularly on London-based infrastructure, I guess we could easily say the same about the whole line.

Peter Evans ● 572d

Jeremy,I have no desire to wade through the huge set of documentation for the Bollo Lane development but a cursory search revealed reference to:"As a primarily residential car-free (other than Blue Badge) development, cycle and vehicle parking and servicing is to satisfactory standards in this location. The applicant proposes a s106 contribution towards the construction of new pedestrian crossings linking both sides of Bollo Lane."Together with "A pedestrian led design which promotes public transport and active travel" and "extend and update the pavements on Bollo Lane and improve the pedestrian experience"I know you will find it difficult to comprehend that the developers are not prioritising convenience of driving above everything else, but it appears to be the case and the development plans are assuming that Bollo Lane will be closed to motor traffic.

Michael Robinson ● 572d

Michael, I was already aware that the TfL development was predominantly car free however you may find this difficult to comprehend but this doesn't mean there will be no increase in vehicle movements in the area. While few of the extra 3,000 people will own cars they will need services, deliveries, carers and have visitors. The propensity for a non-car owning household to generate lower vehicle movements will only hold if they don't compensate by using ubers and getting groceries sent regularly by van.These extra vehicle movements will come on top of those generated by people already living there and, as has been pointed out the existing infrastructure already struggles from time to time. You will have at least five years of construction related traffic starting imminently so in the short term the situation is likely to get worse. If people see heavily congested access roads and the prospect is raised of one of them being closed, that may serve as a massive disincentive to buy flats. Developers obviously don't prioritise driving convenience but they will do what needs to be done to boost sales.If your confidence that the level crossings will be closed is based on better pedestrian crossings on the railways lines, it may be misplaced as it doesn't necessarily follow that this means the crossings are to be permanently closed to traffic.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 571d

If I were being cynical, one reason developers wax enthusiastic about ‘car free’ developments is that it must save them the expense of having to provide or build any parking spaces. But in return for losing however many mature trees and the setting sun being blocked out and Bollo Lane being turned into a dystopian brick-effect canyon, we can at least enjoy the new pavement and delightful cafes we’ve been promised! In any event, the WLO line must now be a low priority in the scheme of things.

Peter Evans ● 571d

Jeremy,You are making the assumption there will be "extra" traffic.  Time and time again this claim is made about road closures and time and time again the people making this claim are wrong.Essentially you are saying that the number of vehicles needing to access the new development will be more than the number of vehicles just driving through Bollo Lane at the moment.It is drivers who get upset about anything that restricts their driving.  The people who don't have cars living in the new development won't care.As I've said, with the frequency of trains going both directions across 2 level crossings just 50m apart, Bollo Lane would be de facto closed anyway because of the time the level crossings would be down.  There won't be a magical technology that will permit a high throughput of vehicles. Do you think that a long queue of traffic with drivers waiting an age to get through the level crossings a couple at a time represents an attractive prospect to developers or residents?  Best just to close it and repurpose some road space to make the area more attractive, as the plans say.Given the overall investment needed in WLO, it is by no means certain it will happen but if it does, they won't be spending money on a rail project to make it easy to drive.

Michael Robinson ● 571d

It is just capitalism.  Developers make a higher return per square metre from residential, retail or business use than car parking space.  That is why so many car parks in London have been removed and have been converted to other use. It isn't the "expense" of car parking, there are more profitable ways of using the space.If there were policies requiring large numbers of car parking spaces as is the case in most of the US, then this is basically subsidising drivers.It is always ironic when those who espouse right wing, market driven policies are socialists when it comes to parking spaces.

Michael Robinson ● 571d

I assume someone's doing 'before' traffic surveys on various roads in and around the Bollo Lane development so informed comparisons can be made about changing traffic movements if the crossing is closed.

Peter Evans ● 571d

Yes, I expect there will be lots of traffic surveys done.As I keep saying, with at least 4 trains per hour in both directions at two level crossings close by each other, the capacity of the road would be reduced massively and would be closed to all intents and purposes as a practical through route even if it was "open".

Michael Robinson ● 571d

Getting onto Bollo Lane from Gunnersbury Lane is a problem due to the crossing outside Acton Town tube. Should the two level crossings become widely used, the tube station junction would need to be light controlled to avoid more congestion in the area.

peter king ● 571d

They tried signalising the Bollo Lane Gunnersbury Lane junction some time back and it was a disaster so they removed the signals. I've been regularly driving in to Chiswick from the A4/M4 for decades to reach the north Chiswick area. When SatNav arrived, it confirmed the route I usually took which was to exit at Chiswick Roundabout and use the High Road to get to Acton Lane. For the last few years the Sat Nav has been directing me up the North Circular and onto Gunnersbury Lane. I presume the software balances the risk of being held up by a train against that of being caught in a queue on the High Road. Call this anecdata if you like but a significant proportion of traffic travelling along Bollo Lane must be through traffic.  If the Bollo Lane level crossings are closed or much more likely to be closed then there are three potential routes that I might be directed 1) straight up Chiswick High Road 2) along the A4 to the Porsche garage or 3) up Gunnersbury Lane to reach Chiswick via Bollo Bridge Road. As 3) is a route I might choose to take anyway to reduce the risk of being held up by a train, this is probably going to be the first option but it is a bottleneck and queues will quickly develop and then the software will switch to other routes. The point here is that although through traffic along Bollo Lane would be reduced if the crossings were closed, that would only happen when congestion in the area was already so severe to increase journey times above other routes previously rejected. It isn't credible to say that these challenges won't get greater when the new buildings are fully occupied. There will be a significant increase in traffic for which it is the final destination which cannot be diverted rather than through traffic. This will have to go through the pinch points at Gunnersbury Lane/Acton Lane or Bollo Bridge Road.  A simplistic counter that this is just drivers complaining about delays in driving is dodging the problem. I don't care if 10-15 minutes is added to a journey I take occasionally. I listen to audiobooks and often welcome a bit of extra time on the road. The issue here is that the existing road infrastructure along Bollo Lane is already struggling to cope. If you are going to see a massive population increase and a closing or restriction of one of the existing access points you are going to have problems. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 571d

Traffic will adjust to the changes. It always does, despite the predictions of doom.

Michael Robinson ● 571d

If ‘Traffic will adjust to the changes’, then it could just be left to adjust to the extended closed periods of the existing crossings rather than closing a crossing altogether. This must happen in Mortlake, as many drivers probably use other routes to avoid the high likelihood of being caught by a level crossing. The Mortlake crossings, however, do have footbridges that allow pedestrians to by-pass the closed gates, while Bollo Lane doesn’t, and Acton Central already has a pedestrian tunnel.

Peter Evans ● 571d

'Leaving the crossings open' doesn't consider the particular circumstances on Bollo Lane where there are 2 crossings very close to each other.A reason to close level crossings is to reduce people being killed or injured at them, and the disruption to train services when drivers inevitably crash into them.Two busy level crossings next to each other may actually be more than twice the risk given there will be drivers frustrated at a long wait at one level crossing immediately facing another long wait at the next.As mentioned in planning documentation, funding for pedestrian bridges over the Bollo Lane crossings will be provided by the developer.  I'd hope they will be better than Mortlake where the footbridge isn't accessible.

Michael Robinson ● 571d

I suppose, to be practical, they’ll have to close the southern crossing to provide enough space for an accessible pedestrian/cycle crossing to use some of the road, though even then I can’t see quite where it would go.

Peter Evans ● 571d

You are right. Judging by discussions about the crossing at the back of Strand School, quite a lot of space would be needed and compulsory purchases of land would be necessary. I would anticipate they would argue that an accessible crossing already exists at the bridge in the business park. The northern crossing is a bit least constrained for space but, even there it hard to see how they could put one in. It would be wrong to take the developer's word that this is going to be practical.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 570d

While ‘accessibility’ is obviously a good thing, it’s seems a shame to get nothing unless ‘accessibility’ can be included.  While a fully accessible bridge, complete with lift towers, can usually be incorporated into a station, it can’t be so easy elsewhere. As for Bollo Lane, an elegant structure that takes people across both lines in one go would be worth aiming for, with sloping ramps instead of lifts, to avoid the ‘lift out of order’ we so often get on the Business Park’s ‘rusty bridge’

Peter Evans ● 570d

Jeremy it may be hard for you to see how a bridge could be installed but that doesn’t mean it is impossible in the real world.  Your lack of knowledge about a wide range of subjects has never stopped you making claims before and this is yet another example.If a project team with expertise putting in bridges said it wasn’t possible then I’d believe them, but not you.As evidence, Hounslow already know what they would need to do to accommodate an accessible footbridge at SotG. It would involve taking some road space and removal of some parking spaces on Regent St on the north side of the tracks. No compulsory purchases necessary. The issue here is Network Rail want to pay the bare minimum for a bridge replacement, the issue isn’t  the technical implementation of an accessible bridge.

Michael Robinson ● 570d

If such a thing exists, I’d certainly be interested to see any plans for a potential ‘pedestrian’ crossing in Bollo Lane, or even an artist’s impression of people streaming over it to get to the delightful new cafes and to use the wonderful new pavement we’re all looking forward to!

Peter Evans ● 570d

I have to confess to not being an expert on accessible bridge design but I did follow the story of the bridge at the rear of Strand School. There a trained civil engineer who lived locally created a design for an accessible bridge but that did require compulsory purchase or at least the release of some land owner by the Freeholder of the Chiswick Village estate. If Hounslow has come up with an alternative plan that would be great but I think you are getting confused with this original scheme.Both the Bollo Lane crossings are far more constrained and basic spatial awareness rather than a civil engineering qualification is all that is needed to see that a ramp access to a footbridge can't work at either site without compulsory purchase. Possibly accessibility by lift could be introduced although for the southern crossing it will probably be argued that this is already there due to the business park footbridge. Pedestrians would have to be encouraged to use Colonial Drive as opposed to staying on Bollo Lane. Possibly they could look at opening up pedestrian access from the current Acton Works site from the  rear of the business park and putting a footbridge with ramp there.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 569d

No Jeremy, I know what is going on with the SoftG footbridge as I've in the area.  Network Rail originally proposed a like for like replacement with no improvement to accessibility.  Hounslow and local residents objected.  Hounslow have drawn up outline plans for the changes required to accommodate the space for an accessible bridge and these involve taking space from the road.  They have considered what this means to the traffic which could be a one-way street or a priority for one direction, but no decisions on that and the ball is in Network Rail court to pay for a more accessible bridge.So-called 'spatial awareness' does not qualify you to design bridges and your opinion on the feasibility is worthless, as it is for many other subjects you know nothing about.

Michael Robinson ● 569d

I'll leave it to others to reach their own conclusion as to whether a ramp based accessibility option would be viable at the two crossings on Bollo Lane. However. it should be borne in mind that following best practice with resting landing every five metres and using a gradient of 1:20, the ramp would need to be 112.7metres long and 2 metres wide. Even if you pushed the design to the edges of what is legal rather than what is recommended, you would only get it down to 67.2 metres and 1.5 metres wide. I make no great claim for my spatial awareness but if you think that this will fit in the existing space then I wouldn't trust you to parallel park my car. It seems to me that in your gleeful relish of the prospect of the closure of a road, you are willing to dismiss a whole range of fiendishly complex technical and practical challenges to it happening. Whether it is advancing the belief that population increases don't lead to traffic increases or the magic Tardis ramp that you envisage, your excitement over some drivers being inconvenienced has dulled your critical faculties. That's not to say that there won't come a time when a hard choice has to be made between keeping the road open and expanding the train schedule but there is no good reason to think this will happen this decade. Wishful thinking may also have got the better of you on the Strand on the Green footbridge. A qualified civil engineer spent time looking at the issue and came up with a solution that required third party owned land to be used. As Network Rail don't have the funding or the inclination to take this on nothing is likely to come of this. I don't believe valuable council officer time has been spent drawing up designs for an alternative that wouldn't require land purchase although I'm prepared to believe that some of them may have visited the site and speculated that something may be technically possible. If there are, as you are suggesting, more detailed plans which are workable, why on earth are these not being put in the public domain so that those lobbying for full accessibility at this bridge can start putting pressure on Network Rail? As with the Bollo Lane crossings, I think you are convincing yourself that things that would like to be true are true.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 568d

Jeremy, your attempts at amateur civil engineering just demonstrate what a complete bullsh!tter you are.You don't appear to be aware that a ramp doesn't need to be one straight length but can have 'switchbacks', so overall surface area  is reduced, or can be suspended from a cantilever so the ground area only required for that structure.  I don't pretend to know guidelines for this area, but if there are lifts there may only be steps as an additional way of getting up and down rather than a ramp.So unlike you, I know what I don't know rather than your Walter Mitty approach to invent things on the basis of zero knowledge.  I still treat your postings as worthless given there will be teams of expert professionals looking at this.It is somewhat telling that you appeared to think there was some magic technology solution that would enable level crossings to maintain the throughput of cars but you think a bridge is impossible.  That's your carbrain showing yet again.Why do you think there would be detailed designs published for SotG until funding is resolved one way or the other?  Network Rail want to pay the bare minimum but pressure can be brought on them and there are other sources for funding accessible infrastructure as well, but that all takes time.I have made no claims that WLO will definitely happen because funding isn't nailed down and I have made no claims that an accessible bridge at SotG will happen because funding isn't resolved either.  You are just inventing things yet again.

Michael Robinson ● 568d

Meanwhile, back at Gunnersbury station, we look forward to a new and welcoming - or at least no longer hidden - public entrance, an elegant and enlarged ticket hall, and two safe, spacious and accessible platforms.

Peter Evans ● 568d

I guess from the way he sprays insults about that Michael must be proud of his nom-de-forum.

Richard Greenhough ● 568d

Ah, Richard Greenhough, the Cw4 version of an old man in a dirty mac, hanging around and sniggering to himself as he is the only person who finds himself funny.Surely you must realise now Richard that Cllr Biddolph is the XL Bully of Chiswick. Not only did she get herself suspended for it, she now appears to be actively going after her neighbours...

Michael Robinson ● 568d

No good trying to divert attention onto Cllr Biddolph, Michael. I specified CW4's XL Bully, and the Cllr does not come onto CW4 and insult those who disagree with her in the way that you do. And while you may have a sense of humour by-pass, it was only three days ago that Philippa enjoyed one of my humorous posts and was moved to say so, so you are wrong there as well.

Richard Greenhough ● 567d

Peter, sorry to distract from the Gunnersbury station issue but, in a way this is all very relevant because if the usage of the line can be increased it would strengthen the case for  a station upgrade.You don't need a civil engineering qualification to work out the problems that Bollo Lane presents, just a basic grasp of maths. Whether you use cantilevered designs or curved ramps the length still has to be between 67 and 102 metres. There isn't space for this at either site at Bollo Lane. I'm pleased to see that Michael has finally recognised that the only possible solution here is a lift plus steps. I need to pay a visit to the area at some point but after this discussion it seems to me likely that ultimately the way round this has to be an alternative pedestrian route along Colonial Drive with another footbridge crossing from the business park to Acton Works.As for the off-hand dismissal of the potential for technology to reduce closure times at level crossing junction this is another example of someone being unwilling to consider facts that don't support their opinions.Deutsche Bahn is using AI powered sensors and machine learning to predict train arrival times more accurately which is reducing early closure and allows gates to open more quickly after the train passes.In Japan, Hitachi’s Smart Rail System uses AI to integrate train speed, traffic flow, and weather conditions to optimise crossing closures. It is credited with a 30% reduction in wait times in urban areas.In the Netherlands, adaptive traffic signals are used to reduce queues at rail crossings. Timings dynamically change to ensure vehicles can get through before gates close. A similar system has been implemented in Florida. In Switzerland, new designs of barrier gates allow them to open and close more quickly. The West London Orbital would lead to an extra eight trains an hour crossing these lines. This is obviously going to be challenging and extra wait times are inevitable but technology will provide some ways to mitigate this issue.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 565d

I really don't know why engineers bother to go to university then spend years building up their professional qualifications and expertise when there are geniuses like Jeremy who can immediately say what designs are possible and not possible  by googling.As I mentioned, WLO is by no means certain but if it does happen, I will look forward to a bridge design that Jeremy claims is impossible as further evidence he is just a bullish!tter.

Michael Robinson ● 565d

You seem to be confusing calling out bullsh!tters and bluffers with bullying.That you appear to think an endorsement from Philippa means you are some sort of comedian is a bit sad, really.

Michael Robinson ● 565d

Fine, Michael, just carry on insulting those who disagree with you. And thanks for demonstrating that you cannot accept being corrected when you are wrong.

Richard Greenhough ● 565d

I can deal with disagreement upon opinions.  You think you are funny.  I think you aren't funny, just sad. Opinions.I am calling out those who put forward uninformed opinions as facts.

Michael Robinson ● 565d

Perhaps we can put this one to bed? There isn't room for a ramp here and this is the crossing that is less constrained for space.
If you close the crossings you have to have accessible crossing otherwise disabled employees at the business park can't get to Acton Town particularly as you are losing the bus route into the development. There is plenty of space for a ramp over the underground line in the car park at the rear of the Pocket Living. 

Mark Evans ● 564d

Ah, another self-proclaimed engineering expert who only needs google street view to say what is possible, no qualifications, no experience, none of that needed.There will be plenty of space if the crossing is closed.

Michael Robinson ● 564d

Aren't you a bit guilty of projection with that first paragraph? Based on minimal engineering expertise and having crossed these point hundreds of times, there doesn't seem to me to be room for a ramp at either site but if someone who knows what they are talking about tells me otherwise, I'd be happy to accept that. How do vehicles, including fire engines access the Pocket Living building if the crossings are closed?

Andrew OSullivan ● 563d

I really don't know why TfL bothers employing engineering consultancies when they can find out that something isn't possible from the opinions of a few people on an internet chat forum based upon google street view and driving along the road.If you had read my posts, I don't think they will close both level crossings as that would mean access to the properties between the level crossings would only be possible via Chiswick Business Park, and that is private land.My non-qualified opinion is that they would close the southern level crossing, currently used for the existing Overground service, but keep the northern level crossing (to be used by WLO).That would mean bus routes through Chiswick Business Park could still use the northern section of Bollo Lane and there would still be access using a public road to the properties between the level crossings.And as I have also said multiple times, with 4 trains per hour in each direction across 2 level crossings a short distance apart, Bollo Lane would be de facto closed to all but a very small number of motor vehicles anyway.  Plus a key reason for removing level crossings is to reduce deaths/injuries and disruption caused by drivers frequently running into them.

Michael Robinson ● 563d

Yes close the North London Line one and keep the goods line one open for access to the business park and build the footbridge / lift over the NLL.   Oh you forgot to mention that cyclist also crash into the gates too. It happened the other year at Grove Park ;-)

Brian Green ● 563d

For some time Vine Road in Barnes has had two level crossings within a short distance of each other where two lines converge, as would be the case in Bollo Lane, and I assume there’s been no proposal to close either crossing.

Peter Evans ● 562d

I seem to remember the issue of the level crossings in Barnes did come up in the context of the mooted SW Rail link to Heathrow as that would mean re-organisation of rail services in the region and possibly a higher frequency rail service at that location.Whether the Bollo Lane crossings are closed or kept open, the point is that with WLO, it simply cannot function as the same road route it is at the moment.

Michael Robinson ● 562d

In an idle moment over the weekend used AI to calculate what percentage of the time one or both of the crossings would be closed if there was an extra four trains each way per hour due to the WLO. Even with the most negative assumptions I couldn't get it above 35 minutes in the hour. Whether this is too high to keep the road open I don't know but it would make accessible crossings imperative.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 551d

Well, the phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' applies applies to calculations done by a human, let alone AI...

Michael Robinson ● 551d

I suggest you read the technical analysis of the WLO, particularly page 29:https://wla.london/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2017-October-West-London-Orbital-Rail-Technical-Analysis-and-Conclusions.pdfAs for space for an accessible bridge, all the road surface of Bollo Lane will be freed up between Weston Road and Stanhope Way.  That's quite a bit more than at SOTG.

Tom Pike ● 550d

Thanks for digging up this report. I remember reading it (or at least being aware of its conclusions) when it was first mooted. The £30million budget will get you a lot less these days. I take your point about the available road surface but it is still a very constrained site for ramps both side of 67-100m particularly as you would have to retain road access for the properties on the left hand side of Bollo Lane as you approach the southern crossing. If the line is eventually closed at this point I believe the argument would be made that there already is an accessible crossing nearby, the Chiswick Business Park footbridge, and therefore there is no need to spend any money another pedestrian bridge.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 549d

No vehicle can stop on the left hand side beyond Weston Road - it's a double-yellow running up to the level crossing and pedestrian access can be retained. However, I take your point about the existing bridge being very close, though there are issues with it being on private land and it is only for pedestrians.  I don't know why they didn't put in ramps in the first place - lift access is not ideal.A better solution might be to rebuild the bridge at South Acton station. There's more space on Kingswood and Palmerston roads to allow a ramped route over and there's only the one set of tracks to cross.

Tom Pike ● 548d

The Chiswick Business Park footbridge installation was a long and painful battle and that probably sets the template for any  attempts to improve access elsewhere nearby. Once again we probably have to accept a less than ideal outcome, particularly on the southern crossing. The householders of Bollo Lane near Weston Road will argue for continued vehicular access.Although accessibility at South Acton would be a good thing, it wouldn't really solve the issues being raised for people with mobility issues living on Bollo Lane or working in the business park. The chance here was probably missed when this wasn't proposed as part of the planning gain for all the development around the station and it now ranks behind Gunnersbury, Kew Bridge and Turnham Green in Network Rail and TfL's plans to make stations step free.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 546d

The ship has probably sailed on step free at South Acton. Here is a blog post about the issue from 2019 suggesting the land that could have been used went to developers:https://anonw.com/2019/05/02/the-problem-of-step-free-access-at-south-acton-station/

Mark Evans ● 543d

The lesson here appears to be that if you want to get a particular transport improvement through planning gain you can't sit back and wait for the council and the developer to come to an agreement. South Acton didn't get anything meaningful from all the huge development nearby, neither did Kew Bridge or Gunnersbury when the business park was built. Chiswick Park is a challenge because of its layout and listed status but, if I were a regular user of that station, I would be mindful that there might be a pot of cash available when the Sainsbury's car park gets built on.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 540d

To be fair, it was part of the planning deal that we eventually got the 'rusty footbridge' from the Business Park and over the railway tracks to improve access to Chiswick Park station and take the pressure off Gunnersbury. That's not to say there aren't plenty of further improvements that Gunnersbury would benefit from.

Peter Evans ● 539d