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!

"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

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!

"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.

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!

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

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!

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
...

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

"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