![]() |
Barking-Greenford?
"John Salmon" wrote in message
... "Jack Taylor" wrote At West Ruislip the centre road is an up through line (although, IIRC, it is bi-directionally signalled ... Not according to Quail. Thx for that. I wasn't entirely sure and haven't got a Quail to refer to. Actually, now I think about it, I should have looked at my LNW Periodical Operating Notices. |
Barking-Greenford?
"John Salmon" wrote in message ... "Jack Taylor" wrote At West Ruislip the centre road is an up through line (although, IIRC, it is bi-directionally signalled ... Not according to Quail. If a stopping train is let out of Marylebone in front of a fast, the first opportunity for the fast to overtake is Princes Risborough. In the up direction there are overtaking opportunities at High Wycombe (where the down platform line is reversibly signalled), and at West Ruislip (using the Up Platfrom Loop). Peter |
Barking-Greenford?
Peter Masson wrote:
If a stopping train is let out of Marylebone in front of a fast, the first opportunity for the fast to overtake is Princes Risborough. In the up direction there are overtaking opportunities at High Wycombe (where the down platform line is reversibly signalled), and at West Ruislip (using the Up Platfrom Loop). This is one of the reasons why the restoration of the through roads at Beaconsfield and the down platform loop at West Ruislip was investigated; this would have provided additional passing places on the Chiltern route south of Aynho Junction. Unfortunately, Chiltern has since found that adding such infrastructure is not necessary, and have instead chosen to thoroughly resignal the route north of High Wycombe and provide bidirectional signalling on both roads between Princes Risborough and Bicester North. |
Barking-Greenford?
TheOneKEA wrote:
Peter Masson wrote: If a stopping train is let out of Marylebone in front of a fast, the first opportunity for the fast to overtake is Princes Risborough. In the up direction there are overtaking opportunities at High Wycombe (where the down platform line is reversibly signalled), and at West Ruislip (using the Up Platfrom Loop). This is one of the reasons why the restoration of the through roads at Beaconsfield and the down platform loop at West Ruislip was investigated; this would have provided additional passing places on the Chiltern route south of Aynho Junction. Unfortunately, Chiltern has since found that adding such infrastructure is not necessary, and have instead chosen to thoroughly resignal the route north of High Wycombe and provide bidirectional signalling on both roads between Princes Risborough and Bicester North. Where did the fourth track originally fit through West Ruislip? The present station layout only permits three between the two current Chiltern platforms. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Barking-Greenford?
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Where did the fourth track originally fit through West Ruislip? The present station layout only permits three between the two current Chiltern platforms. The down platform has been built out over the site of the former down slow. The original platform was very narrow. Peter |
Barking-Greenford?
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... Also, frequency is the central point of John's criticism - more trains should stop at these stations, then the fast journey to London wouldn't be crippled by aeons-long waits! I don't know much about the Chiltern services, but i should imagine there are enough trains that you could get 4 or even 6 tph at these stations. Really don't think there is any demand - 12tph total to the Sudbury area would probably be a gross oversupply. It isn't about supplying the Sudbury area, it's about interchange! -- 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 |
Barking-Greenford?
John Rowland wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Also, frequency is the central point of John's criticism - more trains should stop at these stations, then the fast journey to London wouldn't be crippled by aeons-long waits! I don't know much about the Chiltern services, but i should imagine there are enough trains that you could get 4 or even 6 tph at these stations. Really don't think there is any demand - 12tph total to the Sudbury area would probably be a gross oversupply. It isn't about supplying the Sudbury area, it's about interchange! The demand for interchange at the Ruislips is pretty low, and I reckon demand at Sudbury is even lower. How is the expense of frequent inner-suburban trains on Chiltern justified to meet such a low demand? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Barking-Greenford?
Another hare-brained scheme Build a dual tunnel from Limehouse to Marylebone, get rid of the Renwick Road (Barking) and the Canary Wharf Northern Access traffic lights (pretty pointless), and also grade-separate Gypsy Corner and the A4000 junction. Hey presto - a nice non-stop drive from Barking to Greenford :) /another hare-brained scheme |
Greenford branch & Crossrail (was Barking-Greenford?)
Further to the whole Greenford thing, I totally forgot that the
Greenford branch may *not* lose all its passengers if it is cut back to West Ealing for Crossrail, as Crossrail proposes that the frequency of the branch is doubled to 4tph (making connections to Crossrail at West Ealing). There would be cross-platform interchange from a bay platform for Greenford trains to eastbound Crossrail trains. Journey times from Greenford to Liverpool Street would be marginally quicker via Crossrail than via the Central line (35 mins vs. 38 mins). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Greenford branch & Crossrail (was Barking-Greenford?)
Dave Arquati wrote:
Further to the whole Greenford thing, I totally forgot that the Greenford branch may *not* lose all its passengers if it is cut back to West Ealing for Crossrail, as Crossrail proposes that the frequency of the branch is doubled to 4tph (making connections to Crossrail at West Ealing). There would be cross-platform interchange from a bay platform for Greenford trains to eastbound Crossrail trains. Journey times from Greenford to Liverpool Street would be marginally quicker via Crossrail than via the Central line (35 mins vs. 38 mins). How much faster would journey times be from a hypothetical Crossrail station at North Acton and/or Park Royal instead of the companion LU station? I was at North Acton today and could see just how absurdly easy it would be to dig out the northern edge of the cutting, reinstate double track and build a pair of side platforms, with stairwell interchange at North Acton. You could even get a set of lifts to the Central Line platforms without any major issues... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk