|
|
Post by DrOne on Mar 20, 2012 19:31:53 GMT
That's a technical term  I've decided to combine some ideas I've had and posted previously to alter/re-route existing lines and hopefully improve services: 1. A Jubilee branch from Wembley Pk to Harrow-On-The Hill taking over the intermediate stations from the Met. I would then run all Jubilee trains through Wembley Park, splitting the service 50:50 from there onwards. This allows all Mets to run "fast" Baker St-Finchley Rd-(Wembley Pk)-HOTH and beyond. 2. A Bakerloo branch from Willesden Junction to Hangar Lane then onto West Ruislip. This utilises the Queens Park/Stonebridge Park terminators to take over the West Ruislip branch of the Central line. Branching at Willesden Jn should be more sustainable than the previous Baker St-Stanmore branch. 3. A Central line branch from Shepherds Bush - Richmond via Turnham Green roughly consistent with the 1912 plans for extending the line. The west end of the Central line would then have 2 branches - Ealing Bdy and Richmond. 4. The District's Ealing Broadway route and the Piccadilly's Rayners/Uxbridge route would be swapped giving Acton-Rayners Lane a 12tph service all day. Rayners Lane station and junction would be re-built to better-suit the service. Services would run Upminster-Wimbledon (12tph), Tower Hill/Edgware Rd - Rayners Ln/Uxbridge (combined 12tph) and Piccadilly-Heathrow (18tph)/Ealing Bdy (6tph). Do let me know what you think of my pie-in-the-sky plans 
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 811
|
Post by castlebar on Mar 20, 2012 20:24:40 GMT
Do let me know what you think of my pie-in-the-sky plans
Is it April 1st already??
|
|
|
|
Post by causton on Mar 20, 2012 22:33:29 GMT
I think the first one is at least worthwhile... is it doable? Aren't the slow Met lines inbetween the fast ones between Wembley Park and HOTH - if so, hey presto, shove in some TBTC kit and bob's your uncle. Just gotta work out which platform for which service to go where at HOTH and possibly build a reversing siding (unless you use up 2 platforms or something which is a bit excessive)...
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Mar 21, 2012 12:19:35 GMT
I like all your ideas so far and think theyre sensible. The Bakerloo though, I would change slightly to branch at Queens Park, make a stop at Old Oak High Speed (west side of it), then junction at North Acton and take over the Ruislip Branch. In addition, (and in order to keep Castlebar sweet  ) take one of the Ealing lines, push to West Ealing then up to Greenford via the Castle Bar route. From Greenford perhaps a limited service onwards to Ruislip Gardens, via Ruislip curve, thence to Uxbridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 21, 2012 15:52:58 GMT
I like yer ideas! I'd have the Bakerloo branch at QP, Old Oak, North Acton then the Ealing branch, though I suppose it doesn't matter that.. Do tell whether mine, yours, or Ben's is better  I'm guessing that you'd have, on the District to Uxbridge, 3tph Tower Hill - Rayners, 3tph Tower Hill - Uxbridge, and the same for Edgware Road? And final question for 50 points, would the Central take over the District Services to Richmond? Which could be problematic either way, as the trains have a height difference, unless you decide to go in tunnel! In addition, (and in order to keep Castlebar sweet  ) take one of the Ealing lines, push to West Ealing then up to Greenford via the Castle Bar route. From Greenford perhaps a limited service onwards to Ruislip Gardens, via Ruislip curve, thence to Uxbridge. The bay platform at Greenford is rather short - would you go onto the New North Main Line with that? I think the first one is at least worthwhile... is it doable? Aren't the slow Met lines inbetween the fast ones between Wembley Park and HOTH - if so, hey presto, shove in some TBTC kit and bob's your uncle. Just gotta work out which platform for which service to go where at HOTH and possibly build a reversing siding (unless you use up 2 platforms or something which is a bit excessive)... Yes, the Slow Met Lines are inbetween the fasts there. Lookign at the carto metro map, there are many options for HOTH. My preferred option, if the Jubilee can take it, is to use Platform 4 only - Trains from Uxbridge still use Platform 5 to avoid conflicting movements. Thus, you'd have a Jubilee train arriving, tipping out, into the siding, another in the platform, and the driver walking back to the other end, and the other Jubilee escaping the siding. What would be even better is a balloon loop from the siding!
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Mar 21, 2012 19:21:29 GMT
Here's a hybrid of 1 and 4: Extend the Jubilee along the local lines west of Wembley Park, taking over the Uxbridge branch--with off peak trains alternating between Uxbridge and Rayners as the western termini; and peak alternate Uxbridge, Ruislip, and Rayners at that end. The District could run all the way to Uxbridge--with no short workings as the Picc does now; and the Picc could serve Ealing Broadway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 21, 2012 20:22:13 GMT
If you wanna play the Jubilee along to Uxbridge, I'd rather see the Piccadilly go with it, simply because of the floor height difference and the H&S nuts will have a fit.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 811
|
Post by castlebar on Mar 21, 2012 20:33:13 GMT
Ben @ 1.19 "In addition, (and in order to keep Castlebar sweet  ) take one of the Ealing lines, push to West Ealing then up to Greenford via the Castle Bar route. From Greenford perhaps a limited service onwards to Ruislip Gardens, via Ruislip curve, thence to Uxbridge". Ben, this, (NOT pushing west from Ealing Broadway, [not wanted, nor practical due to crossrail] but proper use of a pax link from Ruislip Gdns to Hillingdon and Uxbridge), isn't to "keep me sweet". It's something that local people and local councils are campaigning for. It is something that should have been done many years ago, but 'men in suits' are finding reasons to prevent it rather than doing something positive, and find how to make it happen. This idea isn't to please me, but to take the misery away from those who are forced to drive on the A40 because of the power wielded by the self-important who are seemingly determined to prevent it, only because they don't live there. They didn't think of it, so therefore anyone else's idea must be a bad idea. I think they are frightened that it would be so successful, having prevented it for so long, their own existence would come under the microscope. Bring it on!!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Mar 21, 2012 22:40:29 GMT
Castlebar, forgive me, I was trying to sound lighthearted (hence the wink).
Yes, personally I'm aware of the Ruislip curve's history. In fact it was one of the first question I asked on the forum sometime in 05/06. Also met John Randal, Uxbridge MP. Been his pet project for many years now. Also heard rumours of the District being expanded up there in the 70s for the proposed NEC site in Ickenham from a couple of the old timers on the group. Must agree that it smacks of the can't do won't do attitude. With any luck some deal can be struck because of HS2. Lets hope they play their cards right...
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 811
|
Post by castlebar on Mar 21, 2012 22:53:11 GMT
Thanks Ben
This isn't "Can't do, won't do", but "Can't be bothered to look into as l don't live there"
This should be a Central Line divert with no Piccs beyond Ruislip or Rayners. But there is deliberate obstruction for some reason. Concrete thinking still rules in the wrong places, - Nobody ever got shot at for keeping their head below the parapet.
|
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Mar 22, 2012 10:01:33 GMT
DrOne, I think 18 tph down to Heathrow is a bit much, there's only one platform at T4 and as a bright spark okayed the crossover at T5 to be after the platforms the reversing is limited there. You might as well keep Heathrow as it is with 12 tph and send the extra ones to Ealing Broadway. With three platforms there I'm sure it could cope with a 12 tph service. (personally I am very much against the idea of this swap though!  ) The Jubilee to Harrow taking over the local lines is a very good idea and doable I think. Castlebar, Regarding sending the Central to Uxbridge and cutting the Pics to Ruislip or Rayners it seems a pity to miss an interchange at short a distance between the two lines (not to forget rebuilding Rayners to cope with all the reverses or rebuilding Ruislip siding elsewhere as the current one would become part of the Central's connection probably). The greatest frequency Ruislip to Uxbridge is 4tph on the Pic with 3tph most of the day. I think keeping it a 3tph and maybe cutting a few Met services from the branch would be all that is needed to allow the Central to fit in at 4tph?
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Mar 22, 2012 15:08:48 GMT
Thanks for humouring my suggestions.
Castlebar: It’s not April 1st yet but it is the RIPAS board so why not eh?
Causton: I would limit my Jubilee to HOTH, using both platforms 4&5 for to allow X-platform interchange in either direction (with a reversing siding beyond the platforms if there is sufficient space before the Uxbridge dive-under). The remaining Mets can all run via platforms 3 and 6, partifularly with signally improvements and simplified stopping patterns north and south of HOTH.
Ben & Alfie – I would take the Bakerloo-West Ruislip option, particularly if (staying in the land of fantasy) we could make an arrangement at QP allowing the Ruislip branch to diverge before the DC and the Harrow & Wealdstone branch converge. This might then create enough space to run a 4tph+ DC service from Watford to New Cross. Could this work with ATO on the Bakerloo?
Alfie – The Central would completely take the Richmond branch with an interchange station at Turnham Green. My District would run 12tph Upminster-Wimbledon, 6tph Tower Hill-Rayners and 6tph Edgware Rd-Uxbridge or vice-versa.
Ruislip – Good idea but don’t you think Uxbridge pax (effectively half of the off-peak Met service) would miss the faster connection to Central London? And how would you make good use of those 8tph Met to Uxbridge displaced by the Jub?
V52gc – 12tph instead of 18tph Heathrow might be acceptable but I’d make the pattern 6tph-T4&123, 6tph-Northfields, 6tph-T123&5 and 6tph-Ealing Braodway. In the peaks (and with ATO) there would be an extra 6tph to Ealing Broadway giving 30tph total on the Picc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 22, 2012 16:01:34 GMT
Thanks for humouring my suggestions. Ben & Alfie – I would take the Bakerloo-West Ruislip option, particularly if (staying in the land of fantasy) we could make an arrangement at QP allowing the Ruislip branch to diverge before the DC and the Harrow & Wealdstone branch converge. This might then create enough space to run a 4tph+ DC service from Watford to New Cross. Could this work with ATO on the Bakerloo? Alfie – The Central would completely take the Richmond branch with an interchange station at Turnham Green. My District would run 12tph Upminster-Wimbledon, 6tph Tower Hill-Rayners and 6tph Edgware Rd-Uxbridge or vice-versa. Right-o! Agreement on the RIPAS board?  I don't think ATO on the Bakerloo would be terribly liked, they wanna make that one of the first to go driverless. I suppose north of QP you could have it manual mode, or Central Line ATO, which has colour-light signals..hmm. This I leave to Ben!
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Mar 23, 2012 4:27:04 GMT
DrOne: There is a reversing siding beyond the platforms...  If any infrastructure were required, a scissors crossing between the east and west slow just to the east of Harrow's platforms allowing late running trains to avoid the siding. Not to mention Jub accesss to the slow north of Wembley! Course the problem now would be what to do with Stanmore platform 3; becomes a bit of a white elephant. I'm sure it was mentioned on here or somewhere that as an alternative it was considered very early on if sending some Jubilees over the Met slow to Harrow/Rayners would be viable. It was felt not for a whole host of small reasons iIrc, which combined made it look less attractive. Alfie: Yes Greenford is tricky for anything; seemingly so. The last 19m of the Central line platforms are on a gradient that stays constant until on the flyover so I wonder if the platforms could be lengthened that side by ~20m? Haven't found a gradient diagram for the shuttle platform though so this might be totally unacceptable. Failing that, it all gets a bit tricky, especially if a connection were required between the lines. It would require some imaginative use of the land to the north and west of the station. Thankfully the NNML was 4 track in the vicinity, and there was a temporary siding between the Central's tracks to the west. Assuming HS2 will take two tracks, that leaves one for an emergency NR line if required, and one more that could connect to the southbound shuttle east of the station and the eastbound Central to the west With a new platform to the north at a lower level. Ruislip: I would be very much against that idea!!  Being as it makes all services from Uxbridge ultra slow into London. Look at the stink thats quite rightly being kicked up about the Amersham slows now. Running a District+Jub service instead of a Met+Pic would add 5 stations on each route respectively. DrOne: Isn't 12tph what Heathrow has at the moment? For how busy it is a couple more tph surely wouldnt go amiss if possible? 18tph total could be split 6 to T4, 6 to T1235, and another 6 to 1235 non-stopping South Ealing-Boston Manor. Finally wrt to signalling; I'd have bitten the bullet, as NYCS have done, and developed a standard ATO system and specification for progressive roll out across the entire network. I doubt now that LUL will ever have one standard for the future, which will in the long term cost more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 23, 2012 7:45:15 GMT
Alfie: Yes Greenford is tricky for anything; seemingly so. The last 19m of the Central line platforms are on a gradient that stays constant until on the flyover so I wonder if the platforms could be lengthened that side by ~20m? Haven't found a gradient diagram for the shuttle platform though so this might be totally unacceptable. Seems it would be pretty good to extend the Westbound platform as much as needed - maybe the Bay up to the waiting room bit? Can't extend the EB as there are car markers there. Taking out the Semaphore is the price to pay!
|
|