Hammersmith services as part of Crossrail

[Deleted]

Whilst reading a letter in Modern Railways today I noted that one person seems to think that the Hammersmith branch of the SSL should be handed over to Network Rail and connected to the Crossrail lines, with services to be operated by such.

Other than the obvious problem of locating a new heavy maintenance facility for the C stock fleet, does this idea hold any water?

[solidbond]

The 'problem' of a heavy maintenance facility for the C Stock may not be relevant, as, with the introduction of the S stock in the year 20??, the stock for the C&H will be maintained primarily at Neasden, with Hammersmith relegated to a 'satellite' facility for minor maintenance.
As to the practicalities of the branch going to Crossrail, I'll leave that for others to think about ;D

[Deleted]

The biggest practicality I can think of is the massive improvement in SSL reliability. With the Hammersmith branch removed from the SSL sphere, a lot of interesting things could be done, chief among them being the removal of the flat junction at Praed Street - Bishops Road wouldn't be needed for SSL services anymore, so why keep it?

Once this link is gone, the immediate benefit is the extension of the Wimbleware service beyond Edgware Road via Kings Cross and Aldgate East to Whitechapel and Barking - making it possible, with decent re-signage and decent connections, to significantly reduce or eliminate the Circle Line services. A second benefit is the release of the center platforms at Edgware Road for timing and turnback purposes, increasing the reliability of the SSL. And the third is the potential reduction in C stock needs, allowing for even more interesting service alterations.

[stanmorek]

solidbond said:

The 'problem' of a heavy maintenance facility for the C Stock may not be relevant, as, with the introduction of the S stock in the year 20??, the stock for the C&H will be maintained primarily at Neasden, with Hammersmith relegated to a 'satellite' facility for minor maintenance.
As to the practicalities of the branch going to Crossrail, I'll leave that for others to think about ;D

Yes I've heard that Neasden will be remodelled with extended sheds and a new multi storey training school as part of Bombardier's plans to takeover all fleet maintenance and that the remaining depots will be used for prepping work only. Which could mean shortening of or more cancellation of engineering hours.

[robots]

This is assuming the departure of the Jubilee line

stock from Neasden I take it ?

[towerman]

That's almost certain,doubling up the sidings at Stanmore is part of the line upgrade plans due to be done by 2010,just in time for the "S" stock.

[Hutch]

Maybe they could also restore the connection with the WLR at Latimer Road that was closed courtesy of the Luftwaffe in 1940. A single lead over the new A3220 could see Crossrail services extended south of the river via K Olympia and the WLER.

In addition, the Royal Oak underpass could be used by local NR services to go from the suburban terminal platforms to the fast lines (and vice versa) without tying up the whole of Paddington’s throat – a need that was expressed some time ago by a NR signal engineer I was in correspondence with on a different list.

[Deleted]

hutch said:

Maybe they could also restore the connection with the WLR at Latimer Road that was closed courtesy of the Luftwaffe in 1940. A single lead over the new A3220 could see Crossrail services extended south of the river via K Olympia and the WLER.

And that trackless bay on the down side of the station sounds SO useful as a peak-hour and exhibition day turnback point too!

hutch said:

In addition, the Royal Oak underpass could be used by local NR services to go from the suburban terminal platforms to the fast lines (and vice versa) without tying up the whole of Paddington’s throat – a need that was expressed some time ago by a NR signal engineer I was in correspondence with on a different list.

Indeed. Yet another reason to investigate the transfer of the Hammersmith branch to Crossrail.

[amershamsi]

could you extend H&C stations to 10/12 crossrail cars - i'm sure you'd end up merging a few stations. and you may as well platform completely from Ladbroke Grove to Goldhawk Road as the gaps between stations will be tiny!

I would perhaps plug the H&C into the Bakerloo, with Crossrail trains using the DC lines from Willesden Junction (and also via Willesden to West Ruislip and beyond). It's a better use of these massive trains, even though it would cost more!

Simon

[Deleted]

I think with Crossrail's tph bias towards East End services, then finding an extra already built route at the West End is a good idea. Taking over the H&C would be a good option for this. It would require platform extensions, merging or removal of some stations. Considerable rebuilding would also be needed at Hammersmith.

If the Wimbleware and chopped H&C services were joined at Edgware Road, then a Wimbledon-Barking service could be run with similar frequencies as at present, without having to change frequencies on the other SSLs. Also, with the added flexibility from both the HSK and South Circle routes being available for 7-car S-stock, then there would be further routing options available at times of service disruption, and further possible long-term route options (which may make better use of Earl's Court layout).

So I think it's a good idea, and a lot better than a certain silly(ish) idea on the front cover of this months Modern Railways.

[Deleted]

stephenk said:

I think with Crossrail's tph bias towards East End services, then finding an extra already built route at the West End is a good idea. Taking over the H&C would be a good option for this. It would require platform extensions, merging or removal of some stations. Considerable rebuilding would also be needed at Hammersmith.

Indeed. Personally I'd fund the conversion of the Hammersmith branch by demolishing Hammersmith depot and selling it off for development - the depot sits on a largish chunk of land in a pretty good spot.

Likewise I'd investigate the restoration of the WLER chord - if the Westway can be crossed easily, you could run Crossrail services to Olympia, taking immense pressure off the District Line.

stephenk said:

If the Wimbleware and chopped H&C services were joined at Edgware Road, then a Wimbledon-Barking service could be run with similar frequencies as at present, without having to change frequencies on the other SSLs.

Exactly as I proposed - extend the Wimblewares to Whitechapel and Barking in place of the H&C, and subsequently reduce the Circle Line service. This would have the added advantage of freeing up paths for an Uxbridge-Tower Hill service

stephenk said:

Also, with the added flexibility from both the HSK and South Circle routes being available for 7-car S-stock, then there would be further routing options available at times of service disruption, and further possible long-term route options (which may make better use of Earl's Court layout).

Indeed. It's such a good idea that it is postively guaranteed not to happen

[mowat]

Why is it lately that everyone thinks that LUL branches should be given to NR? Why build a new line that takes each end from another line and just has a new bit to join them, i.e. Wimbledon and Epping branches of the District and Central lines. Why not build a compleate new line and serve other suburbs.
What would be better for the SSL's is this

Metropolitan Line

Baker Street to Aylesbury, trains would only stop at Finchley Road Wembley Park Harrow-on-the-Hill Moor Park and then all stations to Aylesbury, Baker Street to Watford, Aldgate to Uxbridge and Whitechapel to Hammersmith.

District Line

Upminster to Richmond and Ealing Broadway, Edgware Road to Wimbledon.

There would still be trains to Wimbledon from Upminster and Watford to Aldgate during peak hours only. Also note that under my plans the Metropolitan Line would be extended from Amersham to Aylesbury and the Hammersmith & City Line would become part of the Metropolitan Line again. The Circle Line would be unaffected. ;D

[Phil]

Electrify to Aylesbury? Who's going to pay for that?

[Deleted]

mowat said:

Why is it lately that everyone thinks that LUL branches should be given to NR?

Who's doing that?

mowat said:

Why build a new line that takes each end from another line and just has a new bit to join them, i.e. Wimbledon and Epping branches of the District and Central lines. Why not build a compleate new line and serve other suburbs.

You just described Crossrail Line 2, which (IMO) will never get built.

mowat said:

What would be better for the SSL's is this

Metropolitan Line

Baker Street to Aylesbury, trains would only stop at Finchley Road Wembley Park Harrow-on-the-Hill Moor Park and then all stations to Aylesbury, Baker Street to Watford, Aldgate to Uxbridge and Whitechapel to Hammersmith.

NOES. Not only is ground electrification to Aylesbury unlikely to EVER happen, the pax north of Amersham would all have aneurysms - they like Chiltern's services and don't want to ride TfL EMUs into London.

Besides, the nightmare of timetabling these services would give citysig heartburn...

[Ben]

Before transfering services from BR-LUL and then back again, or whatever, someone should decide what the tube actually is. The orbirail proposals are all metro style services, yet they aren't the tube. Conversely, the services north of Rickmansworth cannot be said to be underground-esque; they have a subtley differant role for the outer suburban and feeder town communities then say the District from Acton Town.
In my humble oppinion, there is too much ambiguity between what is metro, what is tube, what is both, and what is neither. A service like that from Hammersmith would benefit from a metro (as opposed to that offered by crossrail, which seems more long-distance in design) style service; its just a pity that removing it could possibly make the rest of the SSL's run more efficiantly.
The answer lies in lots of money, as always; something which the tube will probably never see enough of.

[Deleted]

benedict said:

A service like that from Hammersmith would benefit from a metro (as opposed to that offered by crossrail, which seems more long-distance in design) style service;

The Hammersmith and City runs a train every 8.5mins during the peaks (in theory). If all of the Crossrail trains that are planned to be turned back in sidings at Westbourne Park, were extended along the H&C, then there could be a 5min frequency. Taking into account that Crossrail would use trains double the length of C stocks, this would be a considerable improvement in capacity, if it were needed.

[Deleted]

The SSR lines have never really been able to decide what they're supposed to be! District services to Southend, Met with pullman cars...

[Colin]

I know i'm gonna get shot down in flames, but i'm gonna say it anyway ( ;D):

My (personal) definition of metro services are those which run at least 4 trains per hour, using "big trains".

My (personal) definition of tube services are those which run in deep level single track tunnels, every few minutes (turn up 'n' go service).

On that basis, SSR is a metro service.

Of course it's not that simple, as, apart from the Victoria and the Waterloo & city, all lines have open sections and tunnel / covered way sections............

[Deleted]

Defining a "metro" is very difficult, as there is such a wide range of systems. Urbanrail.net has a good definition that I like, nearly halfway down this page www.urbanrail.net/about.htm

[Deleted]

Quick question: will the Crossrail trains be 1x10-car trains or 2x5-car trains?

The earlier concerns about platform lengths remind me that if Crossrail trains are formed in the latter setup, perhaps all that is needed is to divide trains in the sidings (with pax on, as the sidings will be cleared for such) and send a 5-car to Hammersmith every six minutes.

[Deleted]

theonekea said:

Quick question: will the Crossrail trains be 1x10-car trains or 2x5-car trains?

The earlier concerns about platform lengths remind me that if Crossrail trains are formed in the latter setup, perhaps all that is needed is to divide trains in the sidings (with pax on, as the sidings will be cleared for such) and send a 5-car to Hammersmith every six minutes.

Why not divide the trains at Westbourne Park and pretend it's the good old Southern Region?

It's not going to happen. Apart from anything else, it would involve closing Royal Oak station.

[Deleted]

innocentabroad said:

Apart from anything else, it would involve closing Royal Oak station.

Given that the trains will be 200m long, then omitting a rather quiet station, and providing extra exits at adjacent stations may not be a bad thing.

theonekea said:

Quick question: will the Crossrail trains be 1x10-car trains or 2x5-car trains?

The earlier concerns about platform lengths remind me that if Crossrail trains are formed in the latter setup, perhaps all that is needed is to divide trains in the sidings (with pax on, as the sidings will be cleared for such) and send a 5-car to Hammersmith every six minutes.

Splitting and reforming trains regularly would increase journey time, and decrease reliability. Not a good idea in my opinion.

[Deleted]

Stephen, you obviously don't ever use Royal Oak - there was enough of a fuss when the "mainline" platforms at Westbourne Park were closed.

However much operational sense it may make, it's a political impossibility.

[Deleted]

innocentabroad said:

Stephen, you obviously don't ever use Royal Oak

Who does?

Seriously though, Paddington now has a NW entrance to service the new office development beside the Paddington Basin Spur, which is only about 5mins walk from Royal Oak station.

[Deleted]

stephenk said:

innocentabroad said:

Apart from anything else, it would involve closing Royal Oak station.

Given that the trains will be 200m long, then omitting a rather quiet station, and providing extra exits at adjacent stations may not be a bad thing.

I don't think Royal Oak is that quiet...

stephenk said:

theonekea said:

Quick question: will the Crossrail trains be 1x10-car trains or 2x5-car trains?

The earlier concerns about platform lengths remind me that if Crossrail trains are formed in the latter setup, perhaps all that is needed is to divide trains in the sidings (with pax on, as the sidings will be cleared for such) and send a 5-car to Hammersmith every six minutes.

Splitting and reforming trains regularly would increase journey time, and decrease reliability. Not a good idea in my opinion.

That's why I said the trains to Hammersmith would divide in the sidings, NOT in Paddington Crossrail platforms. Given that CLRL is willing to provide full passenger interlocking for the reversing sidings, you might as well take advantage of it

[Deleted]

theonekea said:

stephenk said:

Given that the trains will be 200m long, then omitting a rather quiet station, and providing extra exits at adjacent stations may not be a bad thing.

I don't think Royal Oak is that quiet...

stephenk said:

Splitting and reforming trains regularly would increase journey time, and decrease reliability. Not a good idea in my opinion.

That's why I said the trains to Hammersmith would divide in the sidings, NOT in Paddington Crossrail platforms. Given that CLRL is willing to provide full passenger interlocking for the reversing sidings, you might as well take advantage of it

But whether the trains divide in the sidings or at Paddington, there will still be an increase in journey time, and decreases in train reliability.

[amershamsi]

how about making the H&C part of the Bakerloo - OK slightly harder than crossrail, and would require more trains on the Bakerloo (though it should cope) and route some of the 14tph Paddington reversers (on Crossrail) up the DC lines (starting at Willesden junction) in order to relieve the Bakerloo.

then you can run Wimbledon - Wimbledon via Aldgate and Barking - Barking via Edgware Road using H&C and Circle paths.

Simon

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

how about making the H&C part of the Bakerloo - OK slightly harder than crossrail, and would require more trains on the Bakerloo (though it should cope) and route some of the 14tph Paddington reversers (on Crossrail) up the DC lines (starting at Willesden junction) in order to relieve the Bakerloo.

then you can run Wimbledon - Wimbledon via Aldgate and Barking - Barking via Edgware Road using H&C and Circle paths.

Simon

Given that the DC lines are rather quiet with just 6tph of 72TS and 3tph of 313s trains during the peaks, it would probably be overkill to run 12tph of 200m long Crossrail trains along it.

[amershamsi]

stephenk said:

amershamsi said:

route some of the 14tph Paddington reversers (on Crossrail) up the DC lines

Given that the DC lines are rather quiet with just 6tph of 72TS and 3tph of 313s trains during the peaks, it would probably be overkill to run 12tph of 200m long Crossrail trains along it.

hence the word I've made bold to clarify for you...

Simon

[Deleted]

amershamsi said:

stephenk said:

Given that the DC lines are rather quiet with just 6tph of 72TS and 3tph of 313s trains during the peaks, it would probably be overkill to run 12tph of 200m long Crossrail trains along it.

hence the word I've made bold to clarify for you...

Simon

So what would do with the remainder of the trains out of that 12tph?

I still think that Crossrail's plans to reverse trains at Westbourne Park is a waste of capacity that could be used elsewhere. Finding suitable lines are the problem.

Given that the DC lines/Bakerloo have loads of spare capacity already, then it's probably not the favourite line to be taken over. Taking over the H&C which is at bursting point during the morning rush hour would seem like a good, and relatively cheap option. Other options would be taking over Central Line's Ruislip branch, or taking over a Metropolitan branch.

Or maybe just scrap Crossrail, and build Crossrail Line 2/Chelney instead!