|
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
|
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such as the expensive new one over the A312. There might also be some property loss for the chord near Camelot Road. I suppose the other problem is that that the Chiltern Line will be badly disrupted for months during the construction, and the number of beneficiaries isn't large. And most of those already have the option of using the Piccadilly or Central lines, so the incremental benefit, though welcome, is quite modest. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:42:03 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: Basil Jet wrote: I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such as the expensive new one over the A312. There might also be some property loss for the chord near Camelot Road. The South Harrow tunnel is cut-and-cover. Some of Newton's photos show it being built with no spare space. I suppose the other problem is that that the Chiltern Line will be badly disrupted for months during the construction, and the number of beneficiaries isn't large. And most of those already have the option of using the Piccadilly or Central lines, so the incremental benefit, though welcome, is quite modest. Chiltern line users would be very cross about any disruption! Guy Gorton |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such as the expensive new one over the A312. I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns? There might also be some property loss for the chord near Camelot Road. Lancelot Road... a curve of the same radius as the curves to Cannon Street Station would require no demolition IMO, but it would block Lancelot Road and alternative access to the top half of Lancelot Road would have to be found, maybe from Rayners Close. I suppose the other problem is that that the Chiltern Line will be badly disrupted for months during the construction, and the number of beneficiaries isn't large. And most of those already have the option of using the Piccadilly or Central lines, so the incremental benefit, though welcome, is quite modest. I'm writing cheques the mayor isn't going to cash. Unless someone decides to build flats on Stonefield Way and Bradfield Road, which actually isn't at all unlikely. Who would have thought a couple of years ago that there would be a "need" for lots of long trains at New Southgate, of all places? |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such as the expensive new one over the A312. I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns? Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services (up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers. But that introduces more points and signals, which were removed 25 years ago in the interests of reliability. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On 2016\01\11 21:55, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such as the expensive new one over the A312. I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns? Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services (up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers. .... which would have to have 4 minute dwell times to let the fast train go from 2 minutes behind to 2 minutes in front. That's worse than Thameslink! Surely part of the problem is that diesels are distinctly unwhippetlike... an electric overground service wouldn't present quite the same problem. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\11 21:55, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such as the expensive new one over the A312. I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns? Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services (up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers. ... which would have to have 4 minute dwell times to let the fast train go from 2 minutes behind to 2 minutes in front. That's worse than Thameslink! Surely part of the problem is that diesels are distinctly unwhippetlike... an electric overground service wouldn't present quite the same problem. True, the electrics do accelerate much faster, but the average speed over that section would still be pretty low. You wouldn't need a full four minute dwell time, as the stoppers will be slowing down and accelerating in the loops. But there certainly would be an extended dwell time while the stopper was waiting to be overtaken. Even worse, it might be overtaken by a flight of 2-3 fast trains. Also, down LO trains wanting to join the Chiltern line would probably have to wait for a flight of fast trains to pass at the Sudbury Town junction. That's why I assumed you meant that the Chiltern would have to be four-tracked on the shared section. It all seems like a very expensive way to provide an extra two trains an hour to three suburban stations that already have an LU alternative. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On 2016\01\11 23:23, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\11 21:55, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it? You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead. The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central. I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such as the expensive new one over the A312. I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns? Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services (up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers. ... which would have to have 4 minute dwell times to let the fast train go from 2 minutes behind to 2 minutes in front. That's worse than Thameslink! Surely part of the problem is that diesels are distinctly unwhippetlike... an electric overground service wouldn't present quite the same problem. True, the electrics do accelerate much faster, but the average speed over that section would still be pretty low. You wouldn't need a full four minute dwell time, as the stoppers will be slowing down and accelerating in the loops. But there certainly would be an extended dwell time while the stopper was waiting to be overtaken. Even worse, it might be overtaken by a flight of 2-3 fast trains. Also, down LO trains wanting to join the Chiltern line would probably have to wait for a flight of fast trains to pass at the Sudbury Town junction. That's why I assumed you meant that the Chiltern would have to be four-tracked on the shared section. It all seems like a very expensive way to provide an extra two trains an hour to three suburban stations that already have an LU alternative. I can't argue with any of that! |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On 2016\01\12 00:57, Basil Jet wrote:
I can't argue with any of that! Another idea... the Greenford Branch is set to become a shuttle from West Ealing in 2017. Although the frequency will go up from 2tph to 4tph, the curtailment could kill the line off. With the demolition of parts of two light industrial premises and the construction of a new curve by North Acton and another curve from Willesden Junction High Level to Kensal Green, they could run 2tph from West Ealing - DG - CBP - South Greenford - new platform at North Acton - Willesden Junction High Level - KG - QP - KHR - SH - Euston. The other 2tph would run West Ealing - Greenford. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\12 00:57, Basil Jet wrote: I can't argue with any of that! Another idea... the Greenford Branch is set to become a shuttle from West Ealing in 2017. Although the frequency will go up from 2tph to 4tph, the curtailment could kill the line off. With the demolition of parts of two light industrial premises and the construction of a new curve by North Acton and another curve from Willesden Junction High Level to Kensal Green, they could run 2tph from West Ealing - DG - CBP - South Greenford - new platform at North Acton - Willesden Junction High Level - KG - QP - KHR - SH - Euston. The other 2tph would run West Ealing - Greenford. Well, that's certainly a creative way to link that orphan shuttle to LO, where it probably does belong. But it would also be quite expensive, involving two new chords, some redoubled track and electrification. Would a five car 378 fit in the Greenford and West Ealing bay platforms? And is there much demand for a 2 tph service from the Greenford route to Euston? Wouldn't most potential pax prefer to change to the frequent Central line at Greenford to get into town more quickly? It does seem like another solution in search of a problem. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On 2016\01\12 22:40, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: Another idea... the Greenford Branch is set to become a shuttle from West Ealing in 2017. Although the frequency will go up from 2tph to 4tph, the curtailment could kill the line off. With the demolition of parts of two light industrial premises and the construction of a new curve by North Acton and another curve from Willesden Junction High Level to Kensal Green, they could run 2tph from West Ealing - DG - CBP - South Greenford - new platform at North Acton - Willesden Junction High Level - KG - QP - KHR - SH - Euston. The other 2tph would run West Ealing - Greenford. Well, that's certainly a creative way to link that orphan shuttle to LO, where it probably does belong. But it would also be quite expensive, involving two new chords, some redoubled track and electrification. It could be a job for IPEMU. The single track section from North Acton to the Piccadilly Line bridge is only a mile long and would be no problem for a 2tph service, or even a 4tph one. The Greenford East Curve is also single but is even shorter. Would a five car 378 fit in the Greenford and West Ealing bay platforms? And is there much demand for a 2 tph service from the Greenford route to Euston? There's demand from everywhere to Central London. There is a place for shuttles, particularly where the mainline is full, but trains to Central London are better if the track is there, and here it mostly is. Wouldn't most potential pax prefer to change to the frequent Central line at Greenford to get into town more quickly? More quickly? From South Greenford to Oxford Circus is 14 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 9 stops with 1 change at Euston. From South Greenford to Liverpool Street is 20 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 12 stops with 1 change at Euston. It does seem like another solution in search of a problem. The Greenford branch being cut off from Paddington is the problem. Connecting it to Euston is the solution. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\12 22:40, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: Another idea... the Greenford Branch is set to become a shuttle from West Ealing in 2017. Although the frequency will go up from 2tph to 4tph, the curtailment could kill the line off. With the demolition of parts of two light industrial premises and the construction of a new curve by North Acton and another curve from Willesden Junction High Level to Kensal Green, they could run 2tph from West Ealing - DG - CBP - South Greenford - new platform at North Acton - Willesden Junction High Level - KG - QP - KHR - SH - Euston. The other 2tph would run West Ealing - Greenford. Well, that's certainly a creative way to link that orphan shuttle to LO, where it probably does belong. But it would also be quite expensive, involving two new chords, some redoubled track and electrification. It could be a job for IPEMU. The single track section from North Acton to the Piccadilly Line bridge is only a mile long and would be no problem for a 2tph service, or even a 4tph one. The Greenford East Curve is also single but is even shorter. Would a five car 378 fit in the Greenford and West Ealing bay platforms? And is there much demand for a 2 tph service from the Greenford route to Euston? There's demand from everywhere to Central London. There is a place for shuttles, particularly where the mainline is full, but trains to Central London are better if the track is there, and here it mostly is. Wouldn't most potential pax prefer to change to the frequent Central line at Greenford to get into town more quickly? More quickly? From South Greenford to Oxford Circus is 14 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 9 stops with 1 change at Euston. From South Greenford to Liverpool Street is 20 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 12 stops with 1 change at Euston. Yes, but the stops are further apart, and the distance greater, so run times will be similar or longer. The Central line is a lot more frequent, even if it isn't actually quicker, and the cross-platform interchange at Greenford is incredibly convenient compared to Euston. It does seem like another solution in search of a problem. The Greenford branch being cut off from Paddington is the problem. Connecting it to Euston is the solution. Well, the connections at West Ealing and Greenford aren't all that bad, though of course worse than having a direct, if infrequent, train. Most pax will be better off with a 4 tph shuttle than 2 tph direct to Paddington. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On 2016\01\13 00:22, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\12 22:40, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: Another idea... the Greenford Branch is set to become a shuttle from West Ealing in 2017. Although the frequency will go up from 2tph to 4tph, the curtailment could kill the line off. With the demolition of parts of two light industrial premises and the construction of a new curve by North Acton and another curve from Willesden Junction High Level to Kensal Green, they could run 2tph from West Ealing - DG - CBP - South Greenford - new platform at North Acton - Willesden Junction High Level - KG - QP - KHR - SH - Euston. The other 2tph would run West Ealing - Greenford. Well, that's certainly a creative way to link that orphan shuttle to LO, where it probably does belong. But it would also be quite expensive, involving two new chords, some redoubled track and electrification. It could be a job for IPEMU. The single track section from North Acton to the Piccadilly Line bridge is only a mile long and would be no problem for a 2tph service, or even a 4tph one. The Greenford East Curve is also single but is even shorter. Would a five car 378 fit in the Greenford and West Ealing bay platforms? And is there much demand for a 2 tph service from the Greenford route to Euston? There's demand from everywhere to Central London. There is a place for shuttles, particularly where the mainline is full, but trains to Central London are better if the track is there, and here it mostly is. Wouldn't most potential pax prefer to change to the frequent Central line at Greenford to get into town more quickly? More quickly? From South Greenford to Oxford Circus is 14 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 9 stops with 1 change at Euston. From South Greenford to Liverpool Street is 20 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 12 stops with 1 change at Euston. I shouldn't have picked a destination on Crossrail... South Greenford to Liverpool Street is 10 stops with 1 change at West Ealing. Yes, but the stops are further apart, and the distance greater, so run times will be similar or longer. The Central line is a lot more frequent, even if it isn't actually quicker, and the cross-platform interchange at Greenford is incredibly convenient compared to Euston. It does seem like another solution in search of a problem. The Greenford branch being cut off from Paddington is the problem. Connecting it to Euston is the solution. Well, the connections at West Ealing and Greenford aren't all that bad, though of course worse than having a direct, if infrequent, train. Most pax will be better off with a 4 tph shuttle than 2 tph direct to Paddington. You're overstating the indirect aspect. Look at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ions%20Map.pdf and use a string or earphone cable to draw a straight line from North Acton to, say, Kings Cross. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 01:33:11 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote: On 2016\01\13 00:22, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: On 2016\01\12 22:40, Recliner wrote: Basil Jet wrote: Another idea... the Greenford Branch is set to become a shuttle from West Ealing in 2017. Although the frequency will go up from 2tph to 4tph, the curtailment could kill the line off. With the demolition of parts of two light industrial premises and the construction of a new curve by North Acton and another curve from Willesden Junction High Level to Kensal Green, they could run 2tph from West Ealing - DG - CBP - South Greenford - new platform at North Acton - Willesden Junction High Level - KG - QP - KHR - SH - Euston. The other 2tph would run West Ealing - Greenford. Well, that's certainly a creative way to link that orphan shuttle to LO, where it probably does belong. But it would also be quite expensive, involving two new chords, some redoubled track and electrification. It could be a job for IPEMU. The single track section from North Acton to the Piccadilly Line bridge is only a mile long and would be no problem for a 2tph service, or even a 4tph one. The Greenford East Curve is also single but is even shorter. Would a five car 378 fit in the Greenford and West Ealing bay platforms? And is there much demand for a 2 tph service from the Greenford route to Euston? There's demand from everywhere to Central London. There is a place for shuttles, particularly where the mainline is full, but trains to Central London are better if the track is there, and here it mostly is. Wouldn't most potential pax prefer to change to the frequent Central line at Greenford to get into town more quickly? More quickly? From South Greenford to Oxford Circus is 14 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 9 stops with 1 change at Euston. From South Greenford to Liverpool Street is 20 stops with 1 change at Greenford, or 12 stops with 1 change at Euston. I shouldn't have picked a destination on Crossrail... South Greenford to Liverpool Street is 10 stops with 1 change at West Ealing. Yes, but the stops are further apart, and the distance greater, so run times will be similar or longer. The Central line is a lot more frequent, even if it isn't actually quicker, and the cross-platform interchange at Greenford is incredibly convenient compared to Euston. It does seem like another solution in search of a problem. The Greenford branch being cut off from Paddington is the problem. Connecting it to Euston is the solution. Well, the connections at West Ealing and Greenford aren't all that bad, though of course worse than having a direct, if infrequent, train. Most pax will be better off with a 4 tph shuttle than 2 tph direct to Paddington. You're overstating the indirect aspect. Look at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ions%20Map.pdf and use a string or earphone cable to draw a straight line from North Acton to, say, Kings Cross. Which is an interesting point. Thanks to Crossrail, the Greenford line customers do lose their half hourly direct service to Paddington. But, with one change, they get a more frequent and faster service to many more destinations, some new, some already available via the Central Line (but with more stops). The change in the up direction will be cross platform, though not so easy in the down direction. |
Quote:
to wherever a feasible option? |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9
wrote: [color=blue][i] ;153065 Wrote: In article , (Basil Jet) wrote: - I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?- Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to provide more mainline and HS2 capacity? Colin Rosenstiel Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road to wherever a feasible option? Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo gets new stock in a few years time, of course. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
Robin9 wrote:[color=blue][i]
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9 wrote: - ;153065 Wrote: - In article , (Basil Jet) wrote: - I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?- Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to provide more mainline and HS2 capacity? Colin Rosenstiel- Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road to wherever a feasible option?- Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo gets new stock in a few years time, of course. Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable? I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it the people who currently travel on the Overground service to Euston be workable? I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines? We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does address that issue. I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free up the LO Euston platforms for other services. On the other hand, a more intensive LO service to make better use of the track pair would need more Euston platforms, which will be in short supply during the HS2 rebuilding. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
On 2016\01\15 21:50, Recliner wrote:[color=blue][i]
Robin9 wrote: 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9 wrote: - ;153065 Wrote: - In article , (Basil Jet) wrote: - I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?- Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to provide more mainline and HS2 capacity? Colin Rosenstiel- Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road to wherever a feasible option?- Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo gets new stock in a few years time, of course. Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable? I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it the people who currently travel on the Overground service to Euston be workable? I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines? We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does address that issue. I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free up the LO Euston platforms for other services. What? Render 3.5 mile strip of twin track and twin tunnel derelict just because of platform issues at Euston? (Has a look at Quail) Bloody hell. It seems the formation passing Camden carriage sheds is only 5-track. It certainly looks as if there's room for 6 tracks, the tracks just aren't there. What were they thinking? (We only run 3tph on the DC lines, I suppose.) Was it 3tph when LO took it over? However, platform space at Euston is rumoured to be not in short supply. Had the approaches been 6-track, the DC lines could have easily supported 8tph or so from a single platform, surely? I'm tempted to suggest joining the DC line to the Batterware line just south of Chalk Farm station, after the Batterware frequency has been increased. It would get rid of the compromise height platforms between Kensal Green and Stonebridge Park without losing any direct services (although Watford High Street would have to be served by either Met trains or deep tube trains, not both), and give DC commuters an easy interchange at Camden to the Barnden line that they probably actually want. I suspect Figure 2 here rules it out though. http://www.sparpointgroup.com/news/c...e-under-london |
Quote:
Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines, is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an abandoned Watford/Euston service? I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is this idea workable? |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley, London
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:51:16 +0100, Robin9
wrote: [color=blue][i] 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;153217']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9 wrote: - ;153065 Wrote: - In article , (Basil Jet) wrote: - I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?- Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to provide more mainline and HS2 capacity? Colin Rosenstiel- Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road to wherever a feasible option?- Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo gets new stock in a few years time, of course.- Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable? I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it the people who currently travel on the Overground service to Euston be workable? - I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines? - We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does address that issue.- I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free up the LO Euston platforms for other services. On the other hand, a more intensive LO service to make better use of the track pair would need more Euston platforms, which will be in short supply during the HS2 rebuilding. You're quite right. I meant "not address." I've amended my post. Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines, is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an abandoned Watford/Euston service? I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is this idea workable? IMHO possibly yes. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley
Robin9 wrote:[color=blue][i]
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;153217']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9 wrote: - ;153065 Wrote: - In article , (Basil Jet) wrote: - I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?- Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to provide more mainline and HS2 capacity? Colin Rosenstiel- Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road to wherever a feasible option?- Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo gets new stock in a few years time, of course.- Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable? I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it the people who currently travel on the Overground service to Euston be workable? - I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines? - We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does address that issue.- I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free up the LO Euston platforms for other services. On the other hand, a more intensive LO service to make better use of the track pair would need more Euston platforms, which will be in short supply during the HS2 rebuilding. You're quite right. I meant "not address." I've amended my post. Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines, is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an abandoned Watford/Euston service? The Bakerloo currently has a peak service of something like 22 tph. With a bigger fleet, it shouldn't be too hard to increase it to 25 tph, and extend, say, 4 tph of the Queens Park reversers to Watford Junction. In fact, the plan is already to increase it beyond that, with the new fleet and new signalling. So the modernised Bakerloo should be easily able to absorb any holes left by withdrawing the LO service, but of course the direct link to Euston would be lost, which wouldn't go down well. I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is this idea workable? I suppose it depends on how many spare paths are available on the busy NLL between Camden Road and Stratford, assuming that's where you'd send the trains. I doubt that there are three tph available. In fact, it's easier to send them to Euston, which we know does have the paths and platforms available. But while sending them on to the NLL might provide useful journey opportunities for some people, it still cuts the link to Euston, without even leaving spare capacity on the DC lines for more Bakerloo trains. |
Underground, Overground, Wemmerberley, London
e27002 aurora wrote:[color=blue][i]
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:51:16 +0100, Robin9 wrote: 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: ;153217']Robin9 wrote:- 'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: - ;153191']On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:26:44 +0100, Robin9 wrote: - ;153065 Wrote: - In article , (Basil Jet) wrote: - I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?- Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to provide more mainline and HS2 capacity? Colin Rosenstiel- Is diverting the service away from Euston via Camden Road to wherever a feasible option?- Wouldn't it be easier to simply replace the LO service to Watford Junction with the Bakerloo? It might have to wait till the Bakerloo gets new stock in a few years time, of course.- Certainly it would be simpler but would it be practicable? I assume the Bakerloo Line is as overcrowded during rush hour as any other Underground service. Would adding to it the people who currently travel on the Overground service to Euston be workable? - I thought the Bakerloo was the least (over) crowded of the LU lines? - We came back to the beginning of this thread: the DC lines to Euston are an under-utilised asset. Abandoning the service does address that issue.- I assume you meant "does NOT address"? That's true, but it does free up the LO Euston platforms for other services. On the other hand, a more intensive LO service to make better use of the track pair would need more Euston platforms, which will be in short supply during the HS2 rebuilding. You're quite right. I meant "not address." I've amended my post. Living in Leyton, I never have any reason to travel on the Bakerloo during rush hour. If it is less busy than other lines, is it to the extent of being able to absorb refugees from an abandoned Watford/Euston service? I come back to my original suggestion. Diverting the service via Camden Road would free up platforms at Euston while still utilising the bulk of the route south of Willesden Junction. Is this idea workable? IMHO possibly yes. How many spare peak paths are available on the NLL between Camden Road and Stratford? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk