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!

"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

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

"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).

"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.

"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!

"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.

"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

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.

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