Marty wrote:

Forgive my ignorance - hard to keep up from 12,000 km away, but is
the "New North" line out from Old Oak Common to Northolt Jcn still
used by any passenger trains from Paddington? ISTR the line was
singled in part some years ago, but that there was still the
occasional train from Padd to (presumably) Birmingham

The Birmingham Direct line, between Old Oak West Junction and Northolt
Junction, is still used occassionally for freight workings,
parliamentary trains, ECS and diverted passenger trains. When the link
line from Neasden to Northolt is closed and Chiltern trains cannot
reach Marylebone, the Direct line is used to run Chiltern services to
Birmingham from Paddington.

The line is single between Northolt Junction and Greenford West
Junction, double thence to Park Royal West Junction and single to Old
Oak West Junction. Linespeeds are appalling along this stretch, with 40
being the average for a route that was once 90.

Rumours once placed this line at the center of the Crossrail route to
High Wycombe.

The Birmingham Direct line, between Old Oak West Junction and Northolt
Junction, is still used occassionally for freight workings,
parliamentary trains, ECS and diverted passenger trains. When the link
line from Neasden to Northolt is closed and Chiltern trains cannot
reach Marylebone, the Direct line is used to run Chiltern services to
Birmingham from Paddington.

The line is single between Northolt Junction and Greenford West
Junction, double thence to Park Royal West Junction and single to Old
Oak West Junction. Linespeeds are appalling along this stretch, with 40
being the average for a route that was once 90.

When and why was it singled? I travelled on the West Ruislip branch of
the Central line sometime around 1990, and vaguely seem to remember
the Direct line being all double track then (though I might be wrong).
What reason could there have been since then to go out and single it?

asdf wrote:
When and why was it singled? I travelled on the West Ruislip branch
of
the Central line sometime around 1990, and vaguely seem to remember
the Direct line being all double track then (though I might be
wrong).
What reason could there have been since then to go out and single it?



Don't know when, but I do know that the singling involved leaving the
other track in situ. The "new" single line was sometimes the up line,
and sometimes the down (hence (some of) the speed restrictions), and
the remainder stayed put. 'Course, it may have been removed now, but
it may have *looked* like double track when you saw it, but was
actually single.

Hope that makes sense!

PhilD

--

On 9 May 2005 07:23:20 -0700, "PhilD" wrote:


asdf wrote:
When and why was it singled? I travelled on the West Ruislip branch
of
the Central line sometime around 1990, and vaguely seem to remember
the Direct line being all double track then (though I might be
wrong).
What reason could there have been since then to go out and single it?

Don't know when, but I do know that the singling involved leaving the
other track in situ. The "new" single line was sometimes the up line,
and sometimes the down (hence (some of) the speed restrictions), and
the remainder stayed put. 'Course, it may have been removed now, but
it may have *looked* like double track when you saw it, but was
actually single.

Ah, so it could have happened before then.

I seem to remember that at the time, there was no noticable difference
between the two tracks - both looked a bit rusty, but viable. Nowadays
(having seen part of the line recently), one of the two tracks is
obviously disused, being overgrown and very rusty.

On 9 May 2005, PhilD wrote:

asdf wrote:

When and why was it singled? I travelled on the West Ruislip branch of
the Central line sometime around 1990, and vaguely seem to remember
the Direct line being all double track then (though I might be wrong).
What reason could there have been since then to go out and single it?

Don't know when, but I do know that the singling involved leaving the
other track in situ.

Sounds like a rather Zen form of singling! What was the point?

tom

--
you can't feel your stomack with glory -- Czako

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On 9 May 2005, PhilD wrote:
asdf wrote:

Don't know when, but I do know that the singling
involved leaving the other track in situ.

Sounds like a rather Zen form of singling! What was the point?

Sprung?

Seriously, the point is reduced maintenance cost.

--
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

Phil D.:
... the singling involved leaving the other track in situ.

Tom Anderson:
Sounds like a rather Zen form of singling! What was the point?

John Rowland:
... Seriously, the point is reduced maintenance cost.

Specifically, in some cases the point is no points!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I may be ranting, but I'm right!"
-- Wojeck: Out of the Fire

Phil D.:
... the singling involved leaving the other track in situ.

Tom Anderson:
Sounds like a rather Zen form of singling! What was the point?

John Rowland:
... Seriously, the point is reduced maintenance cost.

Mark Brader:
Specifically, in some cases the point is no points!

So 'singling' in this case amounted to 'instructing the maintenance staff
to ignore one of the tracks'? I have to admit, it is an *extremely*
cost-effective way of doing it.

tom

--
Memes don't exist. Tell your friends.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 00:01:09 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Phil D.:
... the singling involved leaving the other track in situ.

Tom Anderson:
Sounds like a rather Zen form of singling! What was the point?

John Rowland:
... Seriously, the point is reduced maintenance cost.

But wouldn't they have to go to the trouble of resignalling it?
(Unless one line was already bidirectionally signalled.)
Although, I suppose maintenance costs are ongoing whereas resignalling
only needs to be done once.

Incidentally, does the line still have the semaphore signals it had 15
years ago?

Specifically, in some cases the point is no points!

Couldn't they just remove any crossovers? That way (I think) there'd
be roughly the same number of points anyway - you'd have extra points
around Greenford, but you wouldn't need the ones where the lines
join/split.