|
Barking-Greenford?
Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article .com, Adrian Auer-Hudson writes 1. Turning crossrail trains back @ Paddington is just crazy when there is a lack of capacity in the mainline station. Capacity in the mainline station won't be involved. The trains will "tip out" at the new Crossrail island platform, run forward to a siding between the tracks around Royal Oak, then back into service on the other side of the same island platform. They never go near (except vertically) the main terminus. I'm told that the sidings will be authorised for passenger use so that there's no need to search the terminating trains by hand. This is necessary to provide the capacity. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: Clive, The point I endeavor to make is: Paddington mainline is at capacity. So, why are we not planning to extend all crossrail trains out into the western suburbs? In doing so, crossrail trains replace current terminating paths on the GW relief lines. By which method maximum capacity is freed up in the terminus. Adrian. |
Barking-Greenford?
What would it take to make at least one of these, GC and Piccadilly Line, pairs into an interchange station? Adrian. |
Barking-Greenford?
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
What would it take to make at least one of these, GC and Piccadilly Line, pairs into an interchange station? Adrian. Moving Sudbury Hill Piccadilly and Sudbury Hill Chiltern. Somewhere south of South Harrow, I believe one can actually see the Chiltern main line from the Piccadilly Line. |
Barking-Greenford?
In message
Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, John Rowland wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... How about killing the Chiltern services to everywhere inward of Denham (or perhaps West Ruislip, for interchange), so that the services left can run fast all the way into Marylebone, What about Northolt Park and Wembley Stadium? Ah, i forgot about Northolt Park. Wembley Stadium could perhaps only be served on match days (or other days when there's a major event at Wembley), but yes, you'd need to stop at Northolt Park. Count the number of days when there isn't a major event at Wembley. Remember it is not just the football ground that is served by that station, there are 4(?) exhibition halls, the Conference Centre and the Arena as well. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Barking-Greenford?
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
What would it take to make at least one of these, GC and Piccadilly Line, pairs into an interchange station? It would be far too expensive to be worthwhile, when interchange between Chiltern and Central lines at West Ruislip provides access to the same general corridor. 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). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Barking-Greenford?
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? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10862735.html (a train on the Hythe Pier Railway, Hampshire in 1998) |
Barking-Greenford?
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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Barking-Greenford?
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote: Operationally converting the branch to be a Central Line extension makes sense. The question is: Would the construction costs be justified? Adrian. How about there being NO tube or rail service between Greenford and West Ealing whatsoever...it could become a branch of the West London tram! Trams from Shepherds Bush run to West Ealing, and connect to the current GW Greenford branch via a new flyover west of the station. More people would use this as there would be more than 2 trams an hour making it quicker than using the bus or the central line service via North Acton. |
Barking-Greenford?
wrote in message oups.com... How about there being NO tube or rail service between Greenford and West Ealing whatsoever...it could become a branch of the West London tram! 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? One of the oddest uses of the line was around 1967 when the Stirling to Newhaven Motorail used it northbound, and the Newhaven to Stirling used it southbound. (The Motorail came up the MML then via Dudding Hill, Acton Wells, Acton Main Line, Drayton Green, Park Royal, Old Oak Common, the WLL and the Brighton Main Line). Peter |
Barking-Greenford?
"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? |
Barking-Greenford?
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) |
Barking-Greenford?
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?) |
Barking-Greenford?
"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 |
Barking-Greenford?
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. |
Barking-Greenford?
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 |
Barking-Greenford?
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. |
Barking-Greenford?
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! |
Barking-Greenford?
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! |
Barking-Greenford?
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! |
Barking-Greenford?
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, 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? Or Central Line use. If there were enough passing loops, this would work. According to my calculations, if loops are spaced t minutes apart, you can run trains in each direction at intervals of 2t; i believe the Ealing Broadway branch of the Central has trains every 6 minutes, which would mean having passing loops every 3 minutes. The stations on this line are 2-3 min apart, so there would simply need to be a passing loop at each: you could annexe a bit of the running track at South Greenford, some of the a school playground at Castle Bar Park, and part of a tennis club or something at Drayton Green. The loss of green space would be unfortunate, but it's compensated by the provision of tube access to Epping Forest [1]. Some of those bits of line might be in cuttings, in which case you could build the loop in a cut-and-cover tunnel, so it's not as bad as all that. Anyway, all fine in theory, but it'd probably be a nightmare making this work reliably. tom [1] Joke. -- Can we fix it? Yes we can! |
Barking-Greenford?
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
... On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, John Rowland wrote: 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. The only entrance is on Greenford Road. As far as I can tell from my OS 1:50000 map, the distance is 200m, which is exactly the same as the distance from Jubilee to Thameslink at West Hampstead. -- 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?
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, John Rowland wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... How about killing the Chiltern services to everywhere inward of Denham (or perhaps West Ruislip, for interchange), so that the services left can run fast all the way into Marylebone, What about Northolt Park and Wembley Stadium? Ah, i forgot about Northolt Park. Wembley Stadium could perhaps only be served on match days (or other days when there's a major event at Wembley), but yes, you'd need to stop at Northolt Park. Count the number of days when there isn't a major event at Wembley. Remember it is not just the football ground that is served by that station, there are 4(?) exhibition halls, the Conference Centre and the Arena as well. Okay, so maybe this fast Chiltern idea wasn't so hot after all. The idea of using the GW line from Greenford to Acton to run long-range Centrals fast is still a goer, though, and doing that could allow Chiltern trains to skip one of the Ruislips. Mind you, having Central Line trains skip two or three stations and Chilterns skip one is hardly a revolution in journey times. This idea shouldn't screw up freight too badly, though - it doesn't touch the Greenford loop (although i'm still in favour of using that branch for the Central Line, that's a separate idea!), or the mainline from Greenford to Ruislip. It would be a problem from the point of view of freight operations on the actual stretch of line from Greenford to Acton; ISTR there are various freight sidings and terminals and whatnot down there, which would stymie the plan. tom -- Can we fix it? Yes we can! |
Barking-Greenford?
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... The idea of using the GW line from Greenford to Acton to run long-range Centrals fast is still a goer, though, and doing that could allow Chiltern trains to skip one of the Ruislips. Mind you, having Central Line trains skip two or three stations and Chilterns skip one is hardly a revolution in journey times. Most Chiltern services already skip West Ruislip. |
Barking-Greenford?
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Tom Anderson wrote:
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. And, hey presto, in the new London Connections map (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/lon_con.pdf is now that new High Frequency Services map), the two Sudbury Hills are indeed one station with two blobs. I was actually looking fairly closely at the strip map on the Picc this morning - they've got huge 'DON'T GO TO COVENT GARDEN YOU MORONS!!!' panels all over it - but i didn't check to see if there's an NR icon at Sudbury Hill now. I'll look this evening. tom -- Can we fix it? Yes we can! |
Barking-Greenford?
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: John Rowland wrote: "Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message egroups.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. A Chiltern service hourly, or a Piccadilly service every 10 minutes. Theoretical average waiting times 30 min and 5 min respectively - 17+30 minutes to Marylebone, or 27+5 minutes to Earl's Court? Of course, it also depends where you are going. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Barking-Greenford?
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, John Rowland wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, John Rowland wrote: 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. The only entrance is on Greenford Road. As far as I can tell from my OS 1:50000 map, the distance is 200m, which is exactly the same as the distance from Jubilee to Thameslink at West Hampstead. Ah, excellent. The TfL journey planner indicated a route which sort of went round the back or something. tom -- Can we fix it? Yes we can! |
Barking-Greenford?
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: John Rowland wrote: "Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message egroups.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 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. A Chiltern service hourly, or a Piccadilly service every 10 minutes. Theoretical average waiting times 30 min and 5 min respectively - 17+30 minutes to Marylebone, or 27+5 minutes to Earl's Court? Dave, there's this wonderful thing called a 'time-table', which, for the big railway, tells you when trains are going to turn up (roughly), so you can get yourself down to the station at just the right time to catch them. Barely any waiting necessary - it's genius! I imagine they'll have them for other things one day, like aeroplanes perhaps. 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. There is then the pathing problem, though, which is probably the real reason these stations don't get more trains. If some four-tracking could be provided, that would be lovely, but i have no idea if it could; it probably wouldn't be cost-effective anyway. Of course, it also depends where you are going. True. This is where Marylebone is a very weak link; you can either get on the Bakerloo if you happen to want to go somewhere it goes, or walk to Baker Street (well, or take the tube to Baker Street, but i don't think it's any faster), so actually getting to a destination from a Chiltern train takes disproportionately long. tom -- Can we fix it? Yes we can! |
Barking-Greenford?
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
... 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 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. Passengers use the Piccadilly line because there's a train every few minutes. AFAIK Sudbury Hill NR has never had a frequent service, and there;s no way that even a 15 minute service could be provided without significant disbenefit to passengers from much busier stations further out. AIUI the only times Sudbury Hill NR becomes popular is if there is a tube strike. Passengers sometimes find the quick journey into Marylebone a pleasant surprise, and carry on using that route for a while after normal service is resumed on the Piccadilly, but soon drift back, perhaps after they've been delayed and miss their train. Peter |
Barking-Greenford?
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... There is then the pathing problem, though, which is probably the real reason these stations don't get more trains. If some four-tracking could be provided, that would be lovely, but i have no idea if it could; it probably wouldn't be cost-effective anyway. All stations Wembley Stadium to Northolt Park had through lines and platform loops at one time, while Northolt Junction to West Ruislip was 4-tracked, with platforms on the slow lines only. However, on a basically double track line, even if some platfrom loops were reinstated, Chiltern couldn't run a good Metro-style service within Greater London, and a would-be inter-city service to Birmingham. *If there was a demand for a Metro-style service*, the best way would be to divert the long distance service back to Paddington (as it used to be) - not possible at present due to lack of sufficient platfrms at Paddington, but the situation will change when much of the FGWL slow line service is transferred to Crossrail. However, I would find it difficult to argue that the local transport needs of the Northolt, Sudbury, Harrow, and Wembley area aren't adequately served by the Central, Piccadilly, Met, and Bakerloo lines, plus Silverlink at Wembley Central and Harrow & Wealsdtone. Peter |
Barking-Greenford?
gwr4090 wrote: In article , Jack Taylor wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... And how would the freight trains that use the Greenford loop and the ex-GW main line to get to the Chiltern route then do so? The answer is to extend Crossrail (rather than Central line) services to West Ruislip via Northolt with a few via Drayton Park. Mixing Crossrail and freight should be less of a problem. David This would mean upgrading and electrifying the GW to West Ruislip. West Ruislip is somewhat overserved anyway. It would be better to spend the money electrifying the GW mainline beyond Maidenhead. A. |
Barking-Greenford?
In article .com,
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote: gwr4090 wrote: In article , Jack Taylor wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... And how would the freight trains that use the Greenford loop and the ex-GW main line to get to the Chiltern route then do so? The answer is to extend Crossrail (rather than Central line) services to West Ruislip via Northolt with a few via Drayton Park. Mixing Crossrail and freight should be less of a problem. David This would mean upgrading and electrifying the GW to West Ruislip. West Ruislip is somewhat overserved anyway. It would be better to spend the money electrifying the GW mainline beyond Maidenhead. I wouldn't disagree on the last point, but it would make a lot of sense to extend some CrossRail services to High Wycombe instead of turning them around outside Paddington. One or two of these per hour could run via Ealing Broadway to replace the Greenford loop service. David |
Barking-Greenford?
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, gwr4090 wrote:
it would make a lot of sense to extend some CrossRail services to High Wycombe instead of turning them around outside Paddington. One or two of these per hour could run via Ealing Broadway to replace the Greenford loop service. Crossrail is about providing a high-frequency service on simple, well-defined lines; if you're going to serve High Wycombe, you have to do it properly, with more than one or two trains per hour. Perhaps you meant sending a good frequency to High Wycombe, but only a few round the loop? Even there, i'd disagree - if you make the pattern that complex, you lose much of the psychological strength of the project, and you make keeping it all running to time that much harder. Not that i'm against using the loop - i'd be in favour of running all the hypothesised Wycombe services via the loop; that way, you'd get more trains through Ealing Broadway. Actually, i'd be even more in favour of taking them off at Old Oak Common, running up to Neasden on the Dudden Hill line, then sending them along the Chiltern corridor on quadrupled tracks - then we can give the suburban Chiltern stations a proper service and let the long-range services run fast more easily (again, utterly nobbling freight traffic along the way). This would be ten times more expensive, of course, for not more than twice the benefit. Sadly, Montague and other people whose job it is to think these thoughts looked at these ideas, and concluded they weren't worth it. Oh well. tom -- Destroy - kill all hippies. |
Barking-Greenford?
In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, gwr4090 wrote: it would make a lot of sense to extend some CrossRail services to High Wycombe instead of turning them around outside Paddington. One or two of these per hour could run via Ealing Broadway to replace the Greenford loop service. Crossrail is about providing a high-frequency service on simple, well-defined lines; if you're going to serve High Wycombe, you have to do it properly, with more than one or two trains per hour. Perhaps you meant sending a good frequency to High Wycombe, but only a few round the loop? Yes I did mean that ! Even there, i'd disagree - if you make the pattern that complex, you lose much of the psychological strength of the project, and you make keeping it all running to time that much harder. Doesn't sound very complex to me ! Say two per hour via Ealing Broadway and Drayton Park and say four per hour via Park Royal, with stops at say Park Royal, Hanger Lane or Perivale, and Greenford. Maybe two of these would terminate short of High Wycombe at say Beaconsfield or West Ruislip, and would completely replace Chiltern stopping services between High Wycombe and South Ruislip. Not that i'm against using the loop - i'd be in favour of running all the hypothesised Wycombe services via the loop; that way, you'd get more trains through Ealing Broadway. Line capacity between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing will be a limitation. I very much doubt that more than two extra per hour could go this way. The original plans, now shelved, involved increasing from four to six running lines over this stretch. An alternative option would be to run all Crossrail services via Park Royal but to send some from Greenford East Jc via Drayton Park to terminate in a bay platform at West Ealing. Actually, i'd be even more in favour of taking them off at Old Oak Common, running up to Neasden on the Dudden Hill line, then sending them along the Chiltern corridor on quadrupled tracks - then we can give the suburban Chiltern stations a proper service and let the long-range services run fast more easily (again, utterly nobbling freight traffic along the way). This would be ten times more expensive, of course, for not more than twice the benefit. I feel there maybe be more benefit from taking over the Watford DC lines. Sadly, Montague and other people whose job it is to think these thoughts looked at these ideas, and concluded they weren't worth it. Oh well. It now rather looks as though the whole Crossrail project will go forward on the basis of the current rather limited aspirations for the western arm - with the possible exception of extending to Reading rather than Maidenhead (is there any news on this ?). Then once the service is underway, there will probably be another rethink about additional western destinations instead of turning back nearly half the trains at Paddington. David |
Barking-Greenford?
gwr4090 wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, gwr4090 wrote: (snip) Sadly, Montague and other people whose job it is to think these thoughts looked at these ideas, and concluded they weren't worth it. Oh well. It now rather looks as though the whole Crossrail project will go forward on the basis of the current rather limited aspirations for the western arm - with the possible exception of extending to Reading rather than Maidenhead (is there any news on this ?). Then once the service is underway, there will probably be another rethink about additional western destinations instead of turning back nearly half the trains at Paddington. I think Reading council have been accused of being a bit slow on the uptake about the whole Crossrail thing, and starting lobbying a bit half-heartedly and a bit too late. I believe that extensions such as Maidenhead to Reading and Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet are not entirely off the table, but are left out for now to make sure Crossrail actually gets built. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Barking-Greenford?
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
Clive D. W. Feather wrote: Adrian Auer-Hudson writes 1. Turning crossrail trains back @ Paddington is just crazy when there is a lack of capacity in the mainline station. Capacity in the mainline station won't be involved. The trains will "tip out" at the new Crossrail island platform, run forward to a siding between the tracks around Royal Oak, then back into service on the other side of the same island platform. They never go near (except vertically) the main terminus. I'm told that the sidings will be authorised for passenger use so that there's no need to search the terminating trains by hand. This is necessary to provide the capacity. The point I endeavor to make is: Paddington mainline is at capacity. So, why are we not planning to extend all crossrail trains out into the western suburbs? In doing so, crossrail trains replace current terminating paths on the GW relief lines. By which method maximum capacity is freed up in the terminus. The short answer is because they're incompetent. They won't even consider taking over the WCML slow lines to Northampton/Milton Keynes, despite it being the route with the greatest potential. However, just taking over some of the paths on the GW releif lines should solve the Paddington capacity problem, at least in the short term. |
Barking-Greenford?
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote: John Rowland wrote: "Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote in message glegroups.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 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. A Chiltern service hourly, or a Piccadilly service every 10 minutes. Theoretical average waiting times 30 min and 5 min respectively - 17+30 minutes to Marylebone, or 27+5 minutes to Earl's Court? Dave, there's this wonderful thing called a 'time-table', which, for the big railway, tells you when trains are going to turn up (roughly), so you can get yourself down to the station at just the right time to catch them. Barely any waiting necessary - it's genius! I imagine they'll have them for other things one day, like aeroplanes perhaps. Ooh, sarcasm... :-) I'm pretty good with timetables... but that doesn't negate the point that if I live in Sudbury and want to leave *now* for central London, my journey is a choice between frequent Picc services where I can turn up at the station when I like, and infrequent Chiltern ones which are only useful if they happen to be going at the time I want to go. It would be extremely foolish to turn up at Sudbury Hill Harrow in this weather and pray for a train :-) On the other hand, I trust Chiltern much much more to run to their hourly timetable than I trust trains on the Piccadilly branch to appear every ten minutes! 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. Better to let Chiltern concentrate on what they're good at, which is an exemplary service to Bucks stations. There is then the pathing problem, though, which is probably the real reason these stations don't get more trains. If some four-tracking could be provided, that would be lovely, but i have no idea if it could; it probably wouldn't be cost-effective anyway. The Ruislips are 3-tracked already, mostly for freight purposes I think. Of course, it also depends where you are going. True. This is where Marylebone is a very weak link; you can either get on the Bakerloo if you happen to want to go somewhere it goes, or walk to Baker Street (well, or take the tube to Baker Street, but i don't think it's any faster), so actually getting to a destination from a Chiltern train takes disproportionately long. It's only worth taking the Tube to Baker St to catch a Jubilee across the platform, and even then it's a bit spurious. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Barking-Greenford?
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... The Ruislips are 3-tracked already, mostly for freight purposes I think. Not really. At South Ruislip traffic from Marylebone can *only* take the platform road, whilst traffic from Greenford can only take the centre road (hence the reason that, when Paddington diversions are on, no trains stop at South Ruislip). So, effectively, the outer two tracks are the up and down Marylebone, whilst the easternmost pair are the up and down Greenford (the up line gives access to both routes). At West Ruislip the centre road is an up through line (although, IIRC, it is bi-directionally signalled - perhaps Roger can correct me on that). |
Barking-Greenford?
"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. |
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 sectional appendix! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk