"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

How much use is made of the West Ealing - Greenford line by freight, or
ecs
workings (e.g to turn), and is this use sufficient to preclude conversion
to
tube or tram?

OTOH the line is so short, so why not retain one bidirectional line for
heavy rail and convert the other for bidirectional light rail use?

Dave Arquati wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:39:55 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:


Marketing and information provision would probably improve the
current situation cost-effectively. The two stations (Sudbury
Hill, Piccadilly and Sudbury Hill Harrow, Chiltern) are as close
as the Central and Piccadilly platforms will be at Park Royal
(i.e. not ideal but not worth moving one of the stations).


Just out of interest, is it known how close the Silverlink
Shepherd's Bush station will be to the one on the Central Line?

Pretty close. The bus terminus / possible tram terminus will be in
between the two stations.

That confirms where I understood it to be located, but there is no sign
of any station construction as far as I could see last week, nor at
Imperial Wharf, nor at White City on the H&C. Yet the first two were
supposed to be opening this summer.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:01:22 GMT, Richard J. wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:
Just out of interest, is it known how close the Silverlink
Shepherd's Bush station will be to the one on the Central Line?

Pretty close. The bus terminus / possible tram terminus will be in
between the two stations.

That confirms where I understood it to be located, but there is no sign
of any station construction as far as I could see last week, nor at
Imperial Wharf, nor at White City on the H&C. Yet the first two were
supposed to be opening this summer.

That's a bit sad. By this time one would expect to see *something*.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680378.html
(87 029 at Wolverhampton in 1979 - why only paint half the springs?)

"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

What would it take to make at least one of these,
GC and Piccadilly Line, pairs into an interchange station?

The addition of an NR symbol to the tube map! The Sudbury Hill stations are
certainly very close.

The philosophy of "we don't need to stop the Chilterns there because the
tubes stop there" is certainly very strange - it's a good job that One don't
go along with that philosophy, or they would provide a skeleton service at
all Tottenham Hale, Seven Sisters and Walthamstow Central. Brent Council are
very keen on getting a better service at all four Chiltern stations, but
Chiltern aren't interested.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:

The philosophy of "we don't need to stop the Chilterns there because
the tubes stop there" is certainly very strange - it's a good job
that One don't go along with that philosophy, or they would provide a
skeleton service at all Tottenham Hale, Seven Sisters and Walthamstow
Central. Brent Council are very keen on getting a better service at
all four Chiltern stations, but Chiltern aren't interested.


Are you sure about that? The usual reason given is that the pathing of
their semi-fast and express services over the Neasden-Northolt section
is too difficult if a number of stoppers were thrown in.

If quadruple track were restored at one of the stations on the stretch,
it may make the pathing easier.

John Rowland wrote:
"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

What would it take to make at least one of these,
GC and Piccadilly Line, pairs into an interchange station?


The addition of an NR symbol to the tube map! The Sudbury Hill stations are
certainly very close.

The philosophy of "we don't need to stop the Chilterns there because the
tubes stop there" is certainly very strange - it's a good job that One don't
go along with that philosophy, or they would provide a skeleton service at
all Tottenham Hale, Seven Sisters and Walthamstow Central. Brent Council are
very keen on getting a better service at all four Chiltern stations, but
Chiltern aren't interested.

What sort of demand do you envisage for interchange between Chiltern and
Piccadilly at Sudbury? I use South Ruislip from time to time and the
interchange demand appears to be poor at best.

As another poster pointed out, the stopping patterns are a problem too.
Demand from Chiltern suburban stations into central London is also
pretty poor as no Chiltern service using the current infrastructure
could match the frequencies and destinations served from nearby
Underground stations.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Jack Taylor wrote:
"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

How much use is made of the West Ealing - Greenford line by
freight, or
ecs
workings (e.g to turn), and is this use sufficient to preclude
conversion
to
tube or tram?

OTOH the line is so short, so why not retain one bidirectional line
for
heavy rail and convert the other for bidirectional light rail use?

Doing that would only provide enough capacity for one tram every half
hour seeing as the single line section would then be three miles long.
Just as now, not many people would use the service, most opting for the
bus or central line instead. The only way out of this would be
installing a lay-by at perhaps Castle Bar Park so trams can pass each
other in opposite directions. There is possible room for this to the
east of the station. If this was done a ten minute interval service
could be created attracting bus and tube passengers.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, John Rowland wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...

Wembley Stadium could perhaps only be served on match days (or other
days when there's a major event at Wembley),

That would be popular with the locals. Or perhaps you think every
station in London should be shut except when there is a big event
nearby?

Exactly.

tom

--
Can we fix it? Yes we can!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, John Rowland wrote:

"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

What would it take to make at least one of these, GC and Piccadilly
Line, pairs into an interchange station?

The addition of an NR symbol to the tube map!

Indeed!

The Sudbury Hill stations are certainly very close.

The TfL journey planner puts the walk at 300 metres; it'd be less if there
was an entrance to the NR station on Greenford Road. That's not a lot more
than the 190 metres between tube and thameslink stations at West
Hampstead, and those qualify as a single station (albeit two blobs) on TfL
diagrams. It's definitely less than the 400 m walk from the W&C to circle
platforms at Bank, which again is one station with two blobs.

If you had a few million to spare - anything found down the back of the
sofa after King's Cross is done, say - you could even sling a subway
between the two, under the road - the opposite of what's being done at
West Hampstead. Of course, there isn't anything like the need for it here.

Maybe if you used the Greenford branch to extend the Central Line to
Harrow-on-the-Hill, via Sudbury Hill ...

The philosophy of "we don't need to stop the Chilterns there because the
tubes stop there" is certainly very strange - it's a good job that One
don't go along with that philosophy, or they would provide a skeleton
service at all Tottenham Hale, Seven Sisters and Walthamstow Central.
Brent Council are very keen on getting a better service at all four
Chiltern stations, but Chiltern aren't interested.

It might be because there isn't demand. How heavily used are the trains
that do stop there?

Of course, this is probably one of those cases where ridership is low
because the service is so poor. If they had quick trains to Marylebone
every 15 minutes, they might see a lot more use.

tom

--
Can we fix it? Yes we can!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message
oups.com...

What would it take to make at least one of these, GC and Piccadilly
Line, pairs into an interchange station?

The addition of an NR symbol to the tube map! The Sudbury Hill
stations are certainly very close.

The philosophy of "we don't need to stop the Chilterns there because
the tubes stop there" is certainly very strange - it's a good job that
One don't go along with that philosophy, or they would provide a
skeleton service at all Tottenham Hale, Seven Sisters and Walthamstow
Central. Brent Council are very keen on getting a better service at
all four Chiltern stations, but Chiltern aren't interested.

What sort of demand do you envisage for interchange between Chiltern and
Piccadilly at Sudbury? I use South Ruislip from time to time and the
interchange demand appears to be poor at best.

It's not about the interchange, it's about people wanting to get into town
quickly: it's 17 minutes to Marylebone by train, or 27 to Earl's Court by
tube.

Depending on how you look at it, of course, that's either only 10 minutes
or a whopping 60% longer.

tom

--
Can we fix it? Yes we can!