Harrow - Uxbridge Fast

[matthewthomas]

Hi Guys.

I was wondering if anyone knew anything about an orgininal plan to have a line that went Harrow on the Hill - Uxbridge, calling only at Ruislip, then there would also be a track stopping at all intermidate stations.

I heard this rumour before, also one of the station staff told me at Ruislip that this is the reason why there is a lot of spare LUL land behind platform 1 (WB) at Ruislip?

Anyone know anymore about this or why it was abandoned?

[Christopher J]

Personally if this was reality, I would extend all Piccadilly services to Uxbridge via the Slow Stopping Lines and put the Mets on the fast (and making a stop at Rayners Lane so that slow Picc punters/Fast Met punters can exchange to a more convenient Train)

To me, that sounds a lot more feasible!

[Deleted]

I have read many books about the Underground, and have never seen mention of such a plan. It seems unlikely that it could ever have repaid the money invested in the extra tracks, although this would not necessarily have discouraged the Met.

Spare land is Ruislip is more likely to be the remains of the goods yard.

[Deleted]

Ruislip was the only station between Rayners and Uxbridge and it did have a passing loop on the westbound. All the other stations on the branch opened later.

[Harsig]

I think you are becoming confused about the early history of the line. When the line opened in 1904 between Harrow & Uxbridge the only intermediate station was Ruislip. Even Rayners Lane opened later.
It must also be remembered that the original scheme was the Harrow, Uxbridge and High Wycombe Railway and I suspect that the Met possibly reatined ambitions to extend the line beyond Uxbridge. Certainly at the time the line was built sufficient land was obtained to provide four tracks throughout. Of course it would be a considerable period before services on the line would require such extravagnt facilities but as an intermediate step it was intended to provide fast avoiding lines at the branch's one and only intermediate station, Ruislip. The lines were to run behind the current westbound platform and through the spare span of the road bridge at the west end of the station. This is why even today the line executes an S bend approaching the station from Ruislip Manor. As it turned out these fast lines were never installed although in recent years many people have suggested that the westbound line be diverted over this alignment with a third platform being provided and the existing westbound platform be used for reversing terminating services.
For reference the goods yard was on the opposite side of the line between Ruislip & Ruislip Manor in the space now occupied by car parks.

[Deleted]

Thanks for the info Harsig. I thought the OP was referring to the old Down Uxbridge No.1, behind signal JB5, that allowed trains from platform 1 to proceed directly onto the Uxbridge chord without crossing the entire layout to reach the burrowing junction.

Would the WB island idea ever gain traction (no pun) today, with the presence of the siding?

[Tomcakes]

I don't have any experience specific to the location but I'd imagine it would speed Ruislip terminators up, not having to spend time tipping out. Could also extend all Rayners services there during the day to make it pay.

[Harsig]

theonekea said:

Would the WB island idea ever gain traction (no pun) today, with the presence of the siding?

From an operating point of view a third platform would be vastly superior to the current arrangements. At present when a train terminates at Ruislip it has to detrain in the platform (during which time no following train can pass) then run half a mile to the signal protecting the siding, come to or nearly to a stand before the signal will clear then draw slowly into the siding, all the while following trains are unable to proceed. Once the train is ready to depart a gap has to be found (or created) in both the eastbound and westbound services because the train has to cross the westbound to reach the eastbound. It then has to run the half mile back to Ruislip before re-entering service.
Remember that all the scheduled Ruislip reversers are in the peaks when the line sees the maximum number of trains.
With a third platform provided the terminating train can arrive directly in the middle platform. Once in the platform the through westbound service would now be able to run unimpeded.There is no need to detrain, the driver need only change ends and when the train is ready to depart it could do so directly to the eastbound line without affecting the westbound.
The siding could then be relegated to its original intended purpose of providing a connection between the Met Line and Ruislip Depot. This in itself would have some advantage. It is often the case that the last few engineers' trains returning from overnight work on the Underground system are trying to use Ruislip siding to gain access to the depot at the same time as the first of the scheduled Ruislip reversers is trying to use the siding to reverse.

Having said all that I would suggest that the chance of a third platform being installed is relatively slim because it would represent a relatively significant investment in the facilities of a station well outside the central area. The many schemes to make alterations to improve capacity at Rayners Lane have also foundered on just the same problem.

[Tomcakes]

How much would it cost? I'm sure it would benefit things on the whole line - trains not being delayed for the rest of the trip etc.

[piccadillypilot]

tombeevers said:

How much would it cost? I'm sure it would benefit things on the whole line - trains not being delayed for the rest of the trip etc.

Careful, you're starting to look at the big picture, that's not allowed.

[Phil]

And I hope you've got big pockets (coz nobody else will pay for it)

[Deleted]

As Harsig has desribed, providing a platform for trains to reverse in at Ruislip would certainly help to avoid the accumulation of delays that can so easily occur, especially during the peaks. On several occasions I've left Harrow on time in the evening peak and finally got to Uxbridge 8 or 9 mins late despite the best efforts of almost every member of staff involved.

The first problem is the track layout at Rayners Lane (with a flat junction, just 2 platforms, and a reversing siding) which would be very costly to alter and reduce conflicts.

Then, as Harsig describes, we have the 'very inefficient and not originally designed for reversing service trains' layout at Ruislip which could at more reasonable cost be made to work a whole lot better.

The final problem is the conflicts at Uxbridge, which would not occur so often if trains hadn't already been delayed at both Rayners Lane and Ruislip.

So the Uxbridge branch, despite being 'out in the sticks', is busy but I can't imagine LUL ever spending serious money on it.

[Deleted]

peteuxb said:

The first problem is the track layout at Rayners Lane (with a flat junction, just 2 platforms, and a reversing siding) which would be very costly to alter and reduce conflicts.

I always wondered why they never dug out under the road and ran some track from the Picc into the space on the westbound side and built a bay road for reversing Picc's, this would completely isolate Picc's reversing at Rayners from the Met and any conflicting moves.

[piccadillypilot]

jim said:

I always wondered why they never dug out under the road and ran some track from the Picc into the space on the westbound side and built a bay road for reversing Picc's, this would completely isolate Picc's reversing at Rayners from the Met and any conflicting moves.

Probably because it would inconvenience passengers changing beween an s/b Met and an e/b Picc and would not stack up under a "minutes saved per pound spent" analysis.

[Tomcakes]

Surely then, putting a reversing siding in at Ruislip, terminating all the current Rayners trains there but retaining the layout at Rayners for use in disruptions or late night / early morning would save a lot of delays, and it wouldn't be a huge project compared to some others currently in progress. Mind you it's not connected to the Olympics so it's unlikely to happen.

[Tom]

There are some track layout changes being planned for Rayners Lane, as mentioned by Bob Bayman at a LURS meeting a few months ago. What the alterations will be like is anyone's guess ;D

[Deleted]

The biggest issue at Rayners is that it isn't laid out like White City. Considering that four million people a year were using the original station before the current one was put there, I'm surprised that this choice wasn't made at the time. It ewas certainly made at Loughton...