Plans for the Hackney Downs – Hackney Central pedestrian link has been approved by Hackney Council, and full details can now be found online. According to TfL, the link will cost about £5m
The two stations were previously linked via a similar walking connection, although this was removed a long time ago.
The interchange in about 1900, courtesy TfL
Back in 2008, 700,000 people a year were estimated to use the stations to interchange between the West Anglia and North London lines, a figure that will only have increased with the success of the Overground. TfL estimated at the time that this figure would almost double were a physical link between the two stations provided. At the time they proposed a scheme that would see a relatively direct link between Hackney Downs’ platform 1 and Hackney Central’s platform 2 (the ticket hall side), but this was ultimately scuppered by the need to remove several large trees and, more crucially, the fact that it would require various signals equipment to be moved by Network Rail.
The current plan, which was approved at the end of last year, thus takes a slightly more circuitous route, linking platform 1 at Hackney Downs with platform 1 at Hackney Central.
The planned Hackney Downs – Hackney Central link, from the planning document
Despite the longer distance, this still knocks a considerable amount of time off of interchanging at the site. Currently this involves exiting Hackney Downs and walking down Dalston Lane and Amhurst Road before entering Hackney Central (or vice versa), a walk of approximately ten minutes (or more if the lure of the Pembury Tavern on the corner of Amhurst Road cannot be resisted). By contrast, the new link will cut that journey time considerably, and will also have the benefit of being “barrier side” at both stations.
A concept image, although the final version is likely to have green panels
Another visual, courtesy of TfL
The link (following from Downs to Central) will connect at the far end of platform 1 and run at high level alongside the current viaduct over the West Anglia lines. It’ll then turn and connect to stairs and a lift tower that mirror, in style, those currently found at Hackney Central. These will then drop down to a ramp which will run parallel to the NLL tracks before connecting to platform 1 at Hackney Central.
The link at the Hackney Downs end
The link at the Hackney Central end
The link will be covered and inside it will be 2.5m metres wide and high, with cameras, monitors and help points along its length, and LED lighting. Where possible (so largely at the Hackney Central end) it will have mesh sides. All this is intended to prevent it from becoming too oppressive a space, given its length.
Inside the Hackney stations link
In terms of station management (as it is worth remembering that both stations are within different franchises) it will fall within the remit of Hackney Central (i.e. TfL), and be open as long as the station is manned.
The elevations
According to the planning documents, construction is likely to begin in 2014 with completion by July that year. Overall it’s a positive scheme, and one that will bring clear benefits. It’s location will make any future platform extension works at Hackney Central potentially trickier to manage, but the station is already long enough to take six car trains and there’d be far larger issues to be addressed elsewhere on the NLL before trains longer than that length became a possibility.
Thanks to MD for the spot
Good stuff – seems a shame not to connect to P2 as well but it’s better than nothing.
Hoping they’ll be shown as an interchange on maps now, which is the key for increasing usage.
I can’t believe this is actually happening! It’s been planned for so long. If this keeps up the Walthamstow Queen’s Road-Central link might exist before the decade is out.
(It’s unlikely I’ll actually /use/ it, mind, as my journeys involving Hackney are specifically to go to the pub you mention.)
Sensible.
What about reopening the Brockley Lane platforms and linking to Brockley now too, given that the Overground seems to’ve been the impetus for this scheme?
Not just the “Pembury” these days, either!
Just under the viaduct/bridge over Mare St is the “Cock”, an classic ex-Trumans pub, now owned by the same people as run the “Southampton Arms” near Gospel Oak station.
Oh dearie, dearie me.
Second Abigails’ comment, I meant w.t.f. is going on (or rather NOT going on) with the Central – Midland link?
Has anyone at all got any useful updates?
good idea – exactly the sort of thing we should be encouraging.
my only point would be that as far as I know, platform 1 at HD is relatively underused as only a few GAML trains stop there. But, TfL could argue that interchange within the GA station is entirely the remit of GA!
Would Brockley attract much usage on the Lewisham line (to Victoria mainly?) and much interchange which Peckham Rye doesn’t offer?
Higher frequency and quicker to Canada Water from Peckham perhaps – but all trains would come from Lewisham and DLR to Canary Wharf would be a lot quicker.
Maybe if they increased the frequency along that line, which I think would be great. But 2tph either way wouldn’t attract much.
Anyway sorry back to Hackney!
And yes, I agree with Anonymous #1 – we should definitely start thinking about opening Brockley Lane, and maybe increasing the frequency of the Lewisham Nunhead trains too
“Would Brockley attract much usage on the Lewisham line (to Victoria mainly?) and much interchange which Peckham Rye doesn’t offer?”
Not everyone is going into town. What about the transfer between Lewisham and East Croydon. Recommended TfL route at the moment is to go via London Bridge… i mean, really??
Errr ….
pf 1 (the Easternmost one @ HD, I think) is used by all the up Chingford trains & the Hertford stoppers in normal service.
c & anon both @ 18.27 seem to have posted to the wrong discussion?
“Oh Mr Porter, what shall I do / I wanted to go to Birmingham / but they’ve shunted me off to Crewe!”
@C
What is this P2 of which you speak, in your 1st post? Hopefully not the secret organization or any of it’s (secret) structures there.
P2 being platform 2!
Lewisham to East Croydon – I agree via London Bridge seems silly but Brockley’s 2tph stopping from Lewisham, and 2tph slow to East Croydon are not competitive with the turn up and go, non-stop/semi-fast trains from both Lewisham and East Croydon to London Bridge!
The avoiding zone 1 fare might be though!
Lewisham to East Croydon I would say to go via Elmers End maybe!
South London Line and Loughborough Junction!
Talking transfers, has anyone actually properly signed the walking route between Clapham High Street and Clapham North ? I could be the idiot that tests it for them (for ‘idiot-proofness’). I have been known to get lost at Infanta and at West Hampstead, and Bethnal Green (and between Shoreditch High St and Liverpool Street), so have the credentials for such a job.
@c 1st post
“Hoping they’ll be shown as an interchange on maps now, which is the key for increasing usage.”
I heartily agree.
I also strongly believe that more OSI transfers should be indicated on the Tube, Tube and Rail Maps (in TfL’s London Visitors Guide), and the London Rail and Tube Services Map, to reduce unnecessary passenger-rail miles (to make longer transfers) & speed journeys.
@c
Lewisham to Elmers End is 2tph…
If you’ve just missed a Hayes train, and need to avoid Zone 1, the Single Fare Finder suggets going to New Cross, walking to NXG and going south from there. That would save you 70p on the off-peak Oyster fare.
@Fandroid – I’ve done that change a few times, there is at least -a- sign, but I wouldn’t know about idiot proof.
As ive said before the CJ ELL and the three lines that run above it! – obviously a new station needex
Brockley Lane feels like a no brainier if frequency could be increased – it would reduce overground and NR congestion from commuters travelling to work in and around the west end – on both overground / jubilee and those going via London bridge / Waterloo east / Waterloo. Plus, it could create a much better link to lewisham town centre.
This thread is about Hackney
Could the “Brockley Lane” piece be transferred to the proper place?
What is being spoken of, anyway?
Greg
I know it’s south of the river, where be dragons, but Brockley is no less, or more, relevant to this thread than the Walthamstow link you have mentioned – a potential interchange in Zone 2.
The situation at Brockley is in fact very like those at Brixton and Loughborough Junction. Between Nunhead and Lewisham the Victoria/Dartford services using the old LCDR Greenwich Park branch pass directly over Brockley station on the Forest Hill line (the original London & Croydon Railway route from London Bridge) – now also used by the London Overground’s West Croydon and Crystal Palace services. In the olden days, before World War 1, there was a station here called Brockley Lane, but although the line was partially re-opened and connected to the SER tracks at Lewsiham in the 1930s, this station was not re-opened with it.
Just a quick note to say that TfL have been kind enough to send us a couple of images they’ve got related to the site (a shot of the old link, and their own mockup which wasn’t included in the planning documents) and also their forecast cost (£5m).
I’ve added all these to the main article.
Thanks to you and TfL for the additional images, particularly the photo of the old link which I’ve never seen before. Unfortunately it just emphasises how much better a two-platform link would have been. £5m to replace one circuitous route with another circuitous route seems something of a waste.
OK, I’m exaggerating somewhat – the new link is an improvement, but a journey from Hackney Downs to HC platform 2 is going to involve walking over the platform you actually want to get to, then two additional sets of stairs to get back to it.
I can also see HC platform 1 (not the widest) becoming congested with through traffic, particularly as the steps of the existing bridge face the “wrong” way.
Why was the old connection removed ? I guess poor service levels pre Overground meant there was no demand, but talk about needing to reinvent the wheel …
Sometimes I think we like to make it difficult for ourselves here in London !
@Stu
Hackney Central station was closed in 1944 and only re-opened in 1980, hence the reason the old connection to Hackney Downs was `no longer required`.
Looking at the picture of the old link,it seems odd that they don’t re-use the topology used then,updated with lifts etc,rather than make a design which seems both more complicated and less effective….or am I missing something?
“or more if the lure of the Pembury Tavern on the corner of Amhurst Road cannot be resisted”
Oh yes. It’s a superb pub. If you ever get round to hosting a London Reconnections meetup/pissup (now there’s an idea) that’d be a very good place to do it.
Is it a possibility that as time and funds allow it might, in future, be further improved/rationalised? Say with platforms at Central extended/moved towards it to replace the ramp and low level walkway, and the overbridge at the other end relocated and incorporated? Theres little point in maintaning 3 lift shafts when two will suffice. The walk between indirectly connected platforms looks to be fairly horrible even after this!
For decades and decades it was understood that providing quality and convenient interchanges was beneficial and what was desired by the fare/tax paying public; however this seems to have been forgotten since the early 90′s. Its good that something is being done here long after it was first called for, but lets be frank its still half baked and will prove wearying, much like the convoluted interchanges at Kings Cross or Green Park, or the rest of the JLE… etc etc.
PhilD
I have a little list ….
The Horseshoe
The Royal Oak, Borough
The Southampton Arms
Tapping the Admiral, Kentish Town West
The Green Dragon Coydon
The Lamb Surbiton
The Red Lion Bromley N
Etc ……
RE: Brockley Lane … serves me right for not consulting “Cobb” I suppose!
Excellent! Next, how about Loughborough Junction, Chiswick Park (for Heathrow tube), Brixton, Willesden Jcn London Midland… London Overground passes over so many potential intechanges it’s not funny! Until these are connected up, it can never be a true orbital railway!
Would having both a Brixton Interchange station AND a Loughborough Junction interchange station on the Overground be wise? I have an open mind about this, but they would be quite close. I guess the options are (1) Brixton only – fully linked with Underground and existing rail station, (2) Having two stations at Brixton and Loughborough Junction , (3) East Brixton station re-instated at Barrington Road – (in the middle of Brixton and Loughborough Junction), (4) Loughborough Junction Station only. My vote (at the moment) would be a station at Brixton.
SOME extra/replacement interchange stations would be a really good idea.
Others, not so.
I am inclined to say Brixton yes, Loughboro’ no.
Brockley Lane
A re-sited N Acton interchange
Unsure about Chiswick Park – curvature & gradient problems?
Leytonstone would have some horrendous logistics problems, given the loacal road layout…..
Is there any way the insane regulations (or are they DafT backside-protecting?) re “no gradient” can be at least relaxed to a sensible amanount – to say “Nothing steeper than 1:150 overall” ?
While we’re at it, Northern Line and Wimbledon Loop at Morden South.
@1956
I advocate stations at both Brixton and Loughborough Junction because, quite simply, they serve different routes. A station at Brixton is not going to be much use the someone wanting Thameslink, is it? Additionally, the LO is a urban metro, the stations distances should be based upon the normal London Underground model…it makes it far more useful!
Longer term, my old preferences for tube extensions is to create a transport “web” in south London would the Northern CX branch to Hayes via Crystal Palace and Loughborough Junction, the Bakerloo to Dartford via Lewisham, Brockley and Peckham Rye, and the Victoria to East Croydon via Streatham and Brixton. Having interchanges with LO is vital to the network.
Overground plaforms at North Acton connected to the Central Line Station, ideally with a new station building directly on Victoria Road. However I suspect the length of the platforms would foul the junctions north and south to Dudden Hill and Ealing Broadway respectively.
“A station at Brixton is not going to be much use to someone wanting Thameslink, is it?”
LO passengers can change at Denmark Hill (for Thanmeslink north), and at Peckham Rye and Tulse Hull, or Brixton and Herne Hill (for Thameslink south)
+1 for an interchange at Brockley. I imagine it would relieve some of the overcrowding at Canada Water by offering a different way to get to the West via Victoria for those coming up on the overground from the south. It would also have local benefits – by making Brockley to Lewisham/Blackheath journeys faster than the rather roundabout bus routes on offer at the moment.
Increasing the frequency beyond 2tph would be vital to make it work though. The line is used for freight as well as the Victoria-Peckham Rye-Lewisham-Blackheath-Bexleyheath-Dartford service. But as someone who lives close to the line the freight seems to go through mainly at night so maybe that would make it easier?
Ahh, the link in my previous post seems to have gone wrong…let’s try again…
(it’s an old WIP experiment, but you get the idea)
always thought they should do something similar at leytonstone / leytonstone high road
@Greg – the flat platforms thing is a myth (as is the idea that platforms cannot be located on a curve). See section 4 in this document, the relevant Railway Group Standard: http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Infrastructure/Guidance%20Notes/GIGN7616%20Iss%201.pdf
Ian J
Thanks, and, err …
In which case, why does everyone scream that “it can’t be done, because of ….”
The standard that says you CAN do it ??????????????
[Provided you are careful, of course.]
Anon @ 22.10
Err, NO
Look closely at the map, or better still Binbg or Google aerial views!
You cannot move Leytonstone GER (Central Line) to the south, because of:
a} the road layout, set up to provide access to the station
b} that is where the junction is & the solum/property is wider
to which I may add, c} if, sensibly Xr2 goes here, that is just the space for it to emerge – tight fit, but do-able.
Leyton T&FGJtRly station is on a viaduct, close to the main road, where are you going to put access if you move the station, even assuming you can get value-for-money with a new-build to the West?
Perhaps a feasible scheme for Brockley would be to run 4tph LO from Lewisham to Clapham Junction. If there was then any way to increase capacity from Lewisham to Hither Green this could then go through to our old friend Bromley North.
Obviously there are issues, not least the need for another terminating platform at Clapham. Perhaps that would favour East Putney.
Interesting comments either about totally different parts of the overground or boozers.
Personally this doesn’t seem such a brilliant interchange.
Part of that is just how Hackney Downs is built making any interchange with the central platform impossible (short of massive rebuilding).
I see the the trees were partially blamed again, but like the old platform 1 at clapham jnc its network rails atrocious siteing of signalling boxes which is to blame.
I also see the mandatory lift, even though neither platform has lift access as far as I’m aware, which doubtless adds quite a bit to the cost; perhaps money better spent trying to find a way around the boxes.
Finally I see no attempt to link hackney downs platform 4 even though there is enough space to put a footpath under the bridge and it would get rid of the semi ridiculous platform width at the Dalston lane end of that platform.
Is this plan final final?
@Anonymous, 10:10PM, 16th February 2013
Even though theoretically there is room to build a (very long) raised connection between Leytonstone Underground and Leytonstone High Road Overground – running south over the western car park next to the A12 at the former, then swinging east along with the viaduct and up to platform level at the latter, you can forget about any possibility of that. TfL have no interest in spending any money on Leytonstone.
I lived there for eight years, during which entire time people at every level – from public to Council leaders – tried to get TfL to fix the disgusting and dangerous (as in a high risk of being mugged or assaulted) pedestrian footbridges across the Tube lines and A12. Nothing was ever received from TfL but empty promises to the community. The situation remains unchanged at the time of writing.
Hex
I believe TfL took the attitude that it wasn’t & isn’t their bridge, it is within the Local Authoritiy’s remit.
Which may, or may not be true.
IIRTC, said bridges were built when the A12 almost-motorway was pushed thrpugh E10 & E11, so it was down to DafT, not TfL (It is a major trunk road, after all)
However, since this is the delightful London Borough of What the F*ck (in which I also live) I’m not suprised nothing was done, especially if they thought they could palm of resposibility for a Public Footpath on theor patch to someone else……
All sounds very familar – everyone playong pass-the-parcel for responsibility, just like the WC-WMid link, in fact, with extra street crime added as a bonus.
Is there much point in the Walthamstow link given Balckhorse Road. The difference is the Chingford line – are passengers from the Chingford stations beyond WC really enough to justify a link to GOBLIN? Would they use it?
If they wanted to travel west, surely a hop on the Vic to Highbury and then NLL would be quicker, more frequent and cover more destinations such as Camden and west of Gospel Oak.
c
Which/what “Walthamstow link” are you talking about?
The much-needed, long-promised pedestrain one between the two stations?
or…
A re-instatement of the Hall Farm Curve, as per the BR Act of 1989-90?
Assuming you are referring to the former …..
Access to Walthamstow T&FGJtRly station is shite, unless you live in the back streets to the SW…
You can’t get there from the Bus station (very busy) without a 10-minute walk.
I can get to Hoe Street (Central) in 6-7 mins from my front door – I allow a minimum of 12 to get to the Midland station. If you want to go East (Barking), why should one go the long way around via Blackhorse Road?
If you want to go to the Southampton Arms or points further West, it MAY be easier to go via H&I, but no quicker.
Anyway, a link was a condition attached to the development, since a link had already been established at that time….
W’stow T&FGJtRly Stn is usually the least busy on the line, which given the population density is plainly silly.
Also changing @ Blackhorse is also shite, because of the appalling narrow platforms & high, narrow foot-bridge.
If TfL had any sense, they’d re-transfer Blacjorse Rd surface station back from the tube (who don’t want it,don;t care, & couldn’t give a toss about the passengers there) to Overground …..
Looking at these plans their is plenty of space to build a ramp between the two levels, rather than the expensive to maintain lift. This seems to be design by box ticking.
Greg,
As a long time LR reader I value your comments, but sometimes I find your abbreviations too cryptic; as someone with an interest in the railways and despite having lived in the vicinity all my life, I have no idea what you mean when you say ‘W’stow T&FG JtRly Stn’. Real station names are appreciated by us mere mortals!
T&FGJtRly is the Tottenham and Forest Gate Joint Railway (now the eastern end of the “Goblin”) opened in 1894 as a joint venture between the London Tibury & Southend and the Midland Railway. The rest of the Goblin was built as the Tottenham and Hampstead Junction railway (opened 1868 as a venture by the Great Eastern Railway but very soon adopted by the Midland)
If you want obscure abbreviations, what about the E&WID&BJR (East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction Railway), The name was soon changed to the North London Railway – maybe because the original name wouldn’t fit on the side of their diminutive locomotives!
timbeau – thanks – you beat me to it!
Wherever possible, I use the 1921/2 nomenclature for railway ownership, excepting the two earlier takeovers, which amalgamated previously separate & only-just joined-up operators.
The first being the LTSR, of course, absorbed by the Midland in 1912, & the other, which is very unlikely to feature in a London discussion, the LD&ECR, absorbed by the GCR in 1907(!).
Sometimes, especially in the tangled geography/history of sarf Lunnon, one has to distinguish between the two constituents of the “Managing Committee”, the SER & the LCDR. Our discussions re Thamselink & Herne Hill come to mind!
Or that the GER was the result of an amalgamation, hence the two (original) main lines of Bishopsgate – Norwich via Ipswich & Stratford – Cambridge – Ely – Norwich (Though the latter was taken over by the Eastern Counties before completion, the Northern & Eastern theoretically remained a separate company until 1902) – yes it’s complicated!
Iam tempted to rise to the challenge and work the LD&ECR into the discussion of Lincoln which turned up on another thread (in the context of freight bypassing London, so not comletely off topic). One of the more ambitious names as it never got anywhere near either “L” or “EC”. (Lancashire, Derbyshire & East Coast, for those not in the know – whose main line ran from Chesterfield to not-quite-Lincoln.
The original L&B (Blackwall, not Birmingham) continued to exist as a company long after it leased all its assets to the Great Eastern Railway – the board met once a year to approve the accounts – income: rent – outgoings: none !
timbeau
The “family trees” at the back of “Cobb” are fascinating.
Many, many railway companies continued to exist on paper, as did the Blackwall, for a long time after all their workings had been taken over by the parent/ absorbing/amalgamating company.
Another example: the London & Greenwich remained a theoretically independant company until the Grouping, but had been leased by the SER since 1845!
£5 million for this? Is it any wonder rail travel costs so much in this country. What a rip off.
Anon @ 13.23
OK – you get it done for less? Ask a contractor for an estimate?
You have to build a passenger footbridge over a working railway, without closing said railway + long passageway, securely + lift-tower & associated power supplies.
I suggest you examine the actualities &/or compare with similar work elsewhere before you make such ill-informed comments.
It occurred to me that if the link remained as an aerial walkway and linked to the HC footbridge then there would be no need for an additional lift down to the HC platform and no need for a structure across the NLL. This would also help with pedestrian flows HD passengers taking a short cut to Mare Street.
(I also bet that further savings could be made if the works had only involved TfL property without touching on NR with their bureaucratic on costs)
PC
err …..
No, actually.
The trackbed of & solum either side of the line by Hackney Central still belongs to NR, actually.
In the same way as all of the Overground’s trackbed and signalling does.
The train-operating contracts may be a very different model (A concession, not a franchise) but the track/train split is still there, & “NR with their bureaucratic on-costs” cover the whole thing, not just the bit as far as the end of the overbridge ……
@Greg
I believe that, although you’re correct that NR owns Hackney Central, it doesn’t own all the Overground’s trackbed or other infrastructure. I believe the line infrastructure from Dalston to New Cross and New Cross Gate still remains very firmly in the hands of TfL subsidiary Rail for London.
Is there any budget or estimated opening date for this? (Or the Walthamstow link, for that matter?!)
Doesn’t it say in the “prospectus” above when the openeing date is supposed to be?
(Looks) Yes it does – July 2014.
The Walthamstow 2-station link of course comes out of the developers’ (& their sucessors) budget …
And IIRC, completion is supposed to be by the end of April, but, as usual, ‘;ll believe it when I see it – & I haven’t wandered down to take a look in the past 2 weeks!