The Crossrail branch to Kingston will probably replace the District line
service to Richmond. What should happen to the 6 District trains per hour
that currently serve Richmond?

If they are diverted to Wimbledon (as Crossrail appeared to suggest earlier
this year), it would halve the frequency of District trains to West
Kensington and subsequent stations. On the other hand, with the other
Crossrail branch serving Ealing Broadway, there seems little point in
diverting them all there, which would put more pressure on the section
through Ealing Common where the track is shared with the Piccadilly.

How about sending them to Northfields? There are 4 tracks between Acton
Town and Northfields, so it shouldn't affect the Piccadilly too much. Also,
with the District serving South Ealing, the Piccadilly could omit that stop,
which means the Piccadilly could stop at Turnham Green to connect with
Crossrail without affecting journey times (for the Heathrow trains anyway).
Another advantage is that it doubles the number of trains serving Chiswick
Park, which by then will have 7000 workers at the Chiswick Park office
development.

Or should there be a more radical review of West London tube services
including the Central line?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
The Crossrail branch to Kingston will probably replace the District line
service to Richmond. What should happen to the 6 District trains per hour
that currently serve Richmond?

If they are diverted to Wimbledon (as Crossrail appeared to suggest
earlier
this year), it would halve the frequency of District trains to West
Kensington and subsequent stations. On the other hand, with the other
Crossrail branch serving Ealing Broadway, there seems little point in
diverting them all there, which would put more pressure on the section
through Ealing Common where the track is shared with the Piccadilly.

How about sending them to Northfields? There are 4 tracks between Acton
Town and Northfields, so it shouldn't affect the Piccadilly too much.
Also,
with the District serving South Ealing, the Piccadilly could omit that
stop,
which means the Piccadilly could stop at Turnham Green to connect with
Crossrail without affecting journey times (for the Heathrow trains
anyway).
Another advantage is that it doubles the number of trains serving Chiswick
Park, which by then will have 7000 workers at the Chiswick Park office
development.

Or should there be a more radical review of West London tube services
including the Central line?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)


What about sending the district to Rayners lane? the sending all piccs to
heathrow? in which case the picc and deistrict wouldn't have to share any
track?

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
How about sending them to Northfields? There are 4 tracks between Acton
Town and Northfields, so it shouldn't affect the Piccadilly too much.

Isn't one of these a test track?

Also, with the District serving South Ealing, the Piccadilly could omit that stop,
which means the Piccadilly could stop at Turnham Green to connect with
Crossrail without affecting journey times (for the Heathrow trains anyway).

Omitting Baron's Court is another possibility - ISTR that the passenger numbers
here are lower than at Turnham Green. Interchange would continue to be available
at Hammersmith.

Are passenger numbers for tube stations on the web somewhere?


Robin

"Rob" wrote in message
...

The Crossrail branch to Kingston will probably replace the District line
service to Richmond. What should happen to the 6 District trains per
hour
that currently serve Richmond?

What about sending the district to Rayners lane? the sending all piccs to
heathrow? in which case the picc and deistrict wouldn't have to share any
track?

That seems the most logical solution, and would allow increased frequencies
to Heathrow. After all, the line to Rayner's Lane was originally District
wasn't it?

It would be sensible, however, for Crossrail to serve Willesden regardless,
although this would necessitate a dog-leg off the GWML and back again. This
would allow many more lines (WLL, NLL, WCML DC lines) to get a decent
Heathrow connection.

Angus

Robin Cox wrote in message ...

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
How about sending them to Northfields? There are 4 tracks between Acton
Town and Northfields, so it shouldn't affect the Piccadilly too much.

Isn't one of these a test track?


Not any more - it was recommissioned for normal passenger train use in 1995, though, for operational convenience at Acton Town, almost all eastbound trains use the fast line.

3518+3227 wrote:
Robin Cox wrote in message ...

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
How about sending them to Northfields? There are 4 tracks between
Acton
Town and Northfields, so it shouldn't affect the Piccadilly too
much.

Isn't one of these a test track?


Not any more - it was recommissioned for normal passenger train use
in 1995, though, for operational convenience at Acton Town, almost
all eastbound trains use the fast line.

But isn't it still used as a test track on occasions? There have been
several reports here in the last year or so, some of them mentioning the
water spray that is used to test braking in the wet. But this shouldn't be
a block to its eventual use for passenger service.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:36:05 GMT, "Robin Cox"
wrote:

Omitting Baron's Court is another possibility - ISTR that the passenger numbers
here are lower than at Turnham Green. Interchange would continue to be available
at Hammersmith.

But I would think that stopping at Barons Court is less expensive (in
terms of time, power needs and brake wear) than sropping at Turnham
Green. It is also a shorter distance across the platform than at
Hammersmith!

Regards,

Clive

--
The fastest AS/400 programmer in the west! | Note -- spamtrap in use.
| Use the Reply-to address.
For details of a West London National Trust property, |
visit http://www.osterleypark.org.uk/ | What -- me worry?

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
3518+3227 wrote:
Robin Cox wrote in message ...

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
How about sending them to Northfields? There are 4 tracks between
Acton
Town and Northfields, so it shouldn't affect the Piccadilly too
much.

Isn't one of these a test track?


Not any more - it was recommissioned for normal passenger train use
in 1995, though, for operational convenience at Acton Town, almost
all eastbound trains use the fast line.

But isn't it still used as a test track on occasions? There have been
several reports here in the last year or so, some of them mentioning the
water spray that is used to test braking in the wet. But this shouldn't be
a block to its eventual use for passenger service.

South Ealing is very busy at rush hour, omitting the Piccadilly Line
would cause chaos for a lot of people, even if it had a replacement.
Barons Court has a massive HE college near it, this probably secures
both lines staying there. I have to admit that those two stations are
my regular journey on the tube, I nearly screamed sacrilege to the
whole of South Ealing when I read that!

The outer tracks are test tracks, they have been testing the Central
Line stock on there recently. There are sprinklers to test brakes
under wet track conditions. I think they could be used for services.

I would put the 6tph up to Rayners Lane/Uxbridge. A better service to
the airport would be beneficial for London, and there would be no
delays getting in to Acton Town from waiting for trains on another
branch to come in. The journey into London is long enough from Rayners
Lane for three more mintues to make a difference.

I guess if Crossrail stops at Turnham Green (I don't see why they have
to build a tunnel, use the NLL I say) the piccadilly will stop there
too.

"CJC" wrote in message
om...

I guess if Crossrail stops at Turnham Green (I don't see why they have
to build a tunnel, use the NLL I say) the piccadilly will stop there
too.

Agreed. The reason why they have not proceeded with the NLL option is that
it would be a slower line, there are greater problems with conflicts with
NLL and freight services than with the tunnel option, and a couple of level
crossings which can't easily be avoided without tunnels.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

The reason why they have not proceeded with the NLL option
is that it would be a slower line, there are greater problems
with conflicts with NLL and freight services than with the
tunnel option, and a couple of level crossings which can't
easily be avoided without tunnels.

I find it hard to believe that a couple of level crossings are even a small
part of the reason for a tunnel costing, what, hundreds of millions? Bollo
Lane, and especially Churchfield Road, are exactly the sort of streets in
which councils erect barriers to prevent rat-running, so closing both roads
at the railway is an obvious and cheap solution.

--
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