Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Sept 6, 2005 11:29:20 GMT
How serious are the rumours of the line swap of Ealing Broadway/ Rayners Lane between the District and the Picc?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2005 11:52:50 GMT
How serious are the rumours of the line swap of Ealing Broadway/ Rayners Lane between the District and the Picc? Looks highly probable when T5 opens, as the Picc will not have enough trains to service Uxbridge abnd Rayners. Of course noone will say anything about it!
|
|
|
Post by ikar on Sept 6, 2005 14:03:08 GMT
There would then needed to be a route reconstruction because SS trains need to go 15mph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2005 14:10:49 GMT
Looks highly probable when T5 opens, as the Picc will not have enough trains to service Uxbridge abnd Rayners. Some of us who live on the Rayner's branch would say they didn't have enough trains now, never mind when T5 opens! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Admin Team on Sept 6, 2005 14:38:52 GMT
How serious are the rumours of the line swap of Ealing Broadway/ Rayners Lane between the District and the Picc? I was speaking to one of the District's senior managers recently (in fact the chap who just happened to be in the City Barge on the day of our 'gathering), and he told me that there is indeed the intention for the District to get the Rayners branch back. Though I know that this an old chestnut, he was very adamant that, come the opening of T5, The Picc will be concentrating their service on the Heathrow branch but will also service Ealing Broadway. I raised the question of the availibility of District line rolling stock. It's his opinion that, although the D Stock fleet is not adequate in number to provide the same service as the Picc does at present, the new SSL trains will, by then, be coming 'on stream' and he thinks the intention will be for the current fleet to be augmented by some new trains. Of course, only time will tell!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Team on Sept 6, 2005 14:43:48 GMT
There would then needed to be a route reconstruction because SS trains need to go 15mph This is not quite correct. Remember that the branch was originally built by the District. The issue is that over the years, the track beds have become raised and what will be needed is for these to be lowered to allow improved clearance under some of the bridge structures. A Sub Surface train will fit - even as things are at present (as I know - before someone else mentions it : but the speed limit is there to ensure that any small risk there may be of a train striking a structure is reduced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2005 15:42:38 GMT
Some of us who live on the Rayner's branch would say they didn't have enough trains now, never mind when T5 opens! ;D That is very true, and today there is no trains at all between Acton & Uxbridge on the Picc, see here and here.
|
|
towerman
My status is now now widower
Posts: 2,882
|
Post by towerman on Sept 6, 2005 17:36:55 GMT
And what were they doing?Raising the track bed yet again,so it's not such a big step up out of a 73TS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2005 21:37:21 GMT
One particular problem with swapping these services is the large number of branches served by the district. During the peaks the Piccadilly operates a 5 min service (12 tph) to Rayners Lane, with the District serving Ealing Bdwy every 8.5 mins (7 tph).
If a straight swap was made, District trains from Uxbridge, Ruislip, and Rayners would be crush-loaded from Sudbury Town in the morning peak. No room for passengers from Alperton onwards!
Have never worked on the District, but I'm assuming that loadings on the Wimbledon and Richmond branches are heavy enough to prevent any 'stealing' of trains from them during the peaks. (??)
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Sept 6, 2005 22:34:51 GMT
The wimbledon branch takes 60% of the westbound passengers from Earl's Court, so it positively needs its 4 minutely peak service. The Richmond branch although less frequent is also heavily used, and of course the lines east of Earls Court are pretty much at capacity with its current layout. imho with the current signalling etc, trains will either have to terminate at Acton town which is a bit of a no brainer as this will hold up the Picc or terminate at High street Ken which has some spare capacity during the peaks, but not a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2005 22:54:10 GMT
The wimbledon branch takes 60% of the westbound passengers from Earl's Court, so it positively needs its 4 minutely peak service. The Richmond branch although less frequent is also heavily used, and of course the lines east of Earls Court are pretty much at capacity with its current layout. imho with the current signalling etc, trains will either have to terminate at Acton town which is a bit of a no brainer as this will hold up the Picc or terminate at High street Ken which has some spare capacity during the peaks, but not a lot. Thanks trainopd78. Looks like the only practical option would be extra High St Ken reversers then. Not sure that's a good idea though, with the extra congestion at both HSK and Earls Court. Glad I don't work on the District if this ever comes in!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2005 7:07:38 GMT
How disruptive would it be to the Picc if part of a District Uxbridge service were reversed at Acton, with the remainder reversed at HSK? Would the Picc lose a lot of 'paths' through Acton as the District trains crossed the fast lines to get to the center platforms?
|
|
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 7, 2005 10:48:17 GMT
So with the District taking over the Rayners Lane service we need more east to west turn-back capacity than HSK is able to provide and there is no further capacity through the city which rules out Mansion House and Tower Hill. Can I therefore propose that a new turn-back facility for the District to be provided at Gloucester Road which can utilise existing infrastructure, require as little new work as possible (mainly track) and not interfere with the Circle Line services. It requires the recommissioning of the northernmost platforms (currently unused) at both Gloucester Road and South Kensington. Please see the attached plan. The northernmost platform at Gloucester Road would accommodate eastbound services of both the Circle and District Lines just as the north face of the island platform currently does. District services converge with the Circle line west of Gloucester Road crossing the west bound Circle on the level similar to the current layout. The north face of Gloucester Road’s island platform will serve only westbound (outer rail) Circle services. In all these rearrangements should lead to no reduction in the current capacity. The south face of the island platform will be the turn-back platform. Terminating District trains will run into this platform without crossing the path of the Circle services having diverged from the through running District Lines west of Gloucester Road. The southernmost platform at Gloucester Road will serve only westbound District trains as it does today. Reversing trains from the turn-back platform would rejoin the westbound District line just west of the station. Because of the twin tunnels between Gloucester Road and South Kensington the westbound District and Circle Lines will have to diverge east of the latter station and this will require the recommissioning of South Kensington’s northernmost platform to serve the eastbound District and Circle services. Like Gloucester Road the north face of the island platform will serve only westbound Circle trains. Having split from the circle line trains, the District service will utilise the south face of the island and have sole use of the southernmost tunnel between the two stations. At some point within the tunnel it must slew over to enter the southern platform at Gloucester Road. I would suggest that this would provide a really useful turn back facility even without the District taking over the Rayners Lane branch.
|
|
|
Post by piccadillypilot on Sept 7, 2005 11:41:07 GMT
I would suggest that this would provide a really useful turn back facility even without the District taking over the Rayners Lane branch. An interesting idea except that passengers tranferring from terminating District trains crossing over to the eastbound/inner rail platform would put additional strain on an already hard working station. Commuters having got on a train and got a seat only to be turfed off a few stations short of their destination and on to an already crowded train would create considerable work for the Customer Services Dept. From the point of view of train operations (i.e. shifting people), it's better to increase capacity through the central area. Mansion House was originally a four platform station. Recomissioning the currently unused road so that all four roads allowed a through train to pass and the two centre roads as turnbacks would provide a better service.
|
|
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 7, 2005 13:37:55 GMT
I quite agree PP but it is not much different to the current situation at HSK with regard to traffic flow on terminating services. In both cases Earls Court should be the encouraged/official transfer station – the use of Gloucester Road merely prevents the blocking of a through road whilst tipping-out. Eastbound District traffic from the Rayners Lane branch will have had plenty of opportunity to change to a through District or the Piccadilly at numerous preceding stations. Humans are humans though . To ease pedestrian flow, could I suggest a new footbridge at the west end of Gloucester Road station – from the island platform to the reused northern one – as an economical way of separating transferring from terminating passengers, keeping the transferees out of the main concourse. I can’t remember what the access to the Piccadilly is like at GR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2005 15:51:30 GMT
Access to the Picc at Gloucester Road is by going up the stairs from District/Circle platforms to the ticket hall, then down in the lift.
If I've understood your diagram correctly, you have four tracks going through Gloucester Road, but there are only three at the moment, with the disused platform being right alongside the E/B track: there is only space for one track between the disused platform and the island.
|
|
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 7, 2005 15:57:26 GMT
Rats! They must have widened the island platform at some point because when it was originally built there were two tracks on the northern (Metropolitan) side. So much for a quick, economical change! Looks like it's going to have to be Mansion House as per PP's plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2005 17:10:24 GMT
That's a good plan Hutch, especially if a footbridge on the west end of the station was commisioned to move people from that end of the platform.
The only problem I can see is that a flat junction is still retained, although its effect is drastically lessened by the separated platforms at Gloucester Road station. The only other thing I can suggest is that a full-length siding be provided east of the terminating platform, to allow the highest possible speed into it to clear the points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2005 17:16:17 GMT
EDIT:
Unless the pillars holding up Waitrose are in the way, who's to say that the platform can't be narrowed again?
|
|
|
Post by russe on Sept 7, 2005 18:08:22 GMT
The recent record of supermarket construction on top of railway lines isn't exactly a glowing one. "The supermarket now standing at platform 4 is the...." Russ
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 7, 2005 19:52:49 GMT
EDIT: Unless the pillars holding up Waitrose are in the way, who's to say that the platform can't be narrowed again? I imagine the HSE would do their best
|
|
solidbond
Staff Emeritus
'Give me 118 reasons for an Audible Warning on a C Stock'
Posts: 1,215
|
Post by solidbond on Sept 7, 2005 20:44:08 GMT
Indeed the platform was widened, and what is currently the Eastbound platform was the location of the running line. One other problem - if they started using the original platform 4, where would they put all the 'Platform for Art' displays? ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2005 20:56:45 GMT
put themon the trains... Back the Bid livery proved popular, maybe they should (for a large sum of money) let budding artists proffesionally paint the sides of tube trains....
|
|
|
Post by Admin Team on Sept 7, 2005 21:01:01 GMT
One other problem - if they started using the original platform 4, where would they put all the 'Platform for Art' displays? ;D ;D In the Recycle Bin perhaps?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Sept 7, 2005 21:05:58 GMT
put themon the trains... Back the Bid livery proved popular, maybe they should (for a large sum of money) let budding artists proffesionally paint the sides of tube trains.... That is not a bad idea from a youngster- but I suspect they would have to be applied as vinyls since the paint wouldn't last in the carriage wash.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 7, 2005 21:34:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J on Sept 7, 2005 21:36:22 GMT
Chris, could you check the URLs of the Photo's you just posted please, as none of them seem to work!
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 7, 2005 21:47:44 GMT
I made a typo in the name of the server (it is sucs.org not scus.org) which I corrected, but even then it didn't like the great gardens one (perhaps the url was too long?) so I simplified the file names somewhat and tried again. They now work (at least for me).
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J on Sept 7, 2005 21:48:54 GMT
Yep, they work now.
Nice Photographs!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,310
|
Post by Colin on Sept 8, 2005 1:17:59 GMT
Anyway, back on topic!
All this stuff about where to terminate trains from Uxbridge was a waste of a thread!! The Ealing - Tower Hill service, under a line swap, would become Uxbridge - Tower Hill.
Sorry to be cocky, but I would have thought that was obvious !! ;D ;D
|
|