|
Post by snoggle on Aug 27, 2013 16:21:17 GMT
TfL are consulting about the Piccadilly Line timetable and, in particular, about stopping trains at Turnham Green for a longer part of the service day. Consultation Link
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 27, 2013 23:00:26 GMT
Acton Town/South Acton/Chiswick Park/Gunnersbury/Turnham Green is a real mess for connectivity. If there is reluctance to loose running time, perhaps TG could substitute for Barons Court. Or maybe trains that stop at Turnham Green could run fast between Acton and Boston Manor?
What are the speed limits on the Fast lines like nowadays between Hammersmith and Acton, is there any room to improve this to compensate?
I see though the propaganda is swinging into full action regarding describing the 1973ts... Has there been an internal decision to try and slate it at every available opportunity now? Describe it in accurate yet misleading terms? Really makes me angry to see this occur especially when the target is something well engineered, aesthetically pleasing, and well liked.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Aug 28, 2013 8:23:01 GMT
There's a lot of political pressure for the Piccadilly line to stop all day at Turnham Green, but I can't see it happening. The knock on effect would be detrimental to the rest of the line.
The maximum line speed is 45 mph.
Although it used to be the worse, the 73 stock fleet's now one of the most reliable on the Underground, but that's more down to the era of Tubelines and PPP.
The 73 stock certainly wasn't well engineered! Apart from 'slip slide equipment' (scrapped), 'TEPs' (scrapped), 'inflating cab door seals' (removed), rain coming through the roof (as motormen, we sat in the cabs with umbrellas up), cab heaters that didn't work, no cab ventilation (had to wedge the cab door open with old fuses or a handlamp), MM's seats collapsing, interior panels falling off, saloon heating and vents not working...I could go on, they were good trains.
However, technology moves on and the newer trains are cheaper to run and maintain. We're moving into an era of driverless trains and the 73 stock can't be converted for that use.
|
|
l1group
7007+7032 on T004, Gunnersbury
Posts: 358
|
Post by l1group on Aug 28, 2013 9:45:47 GMT
Acton Town/South Acton/Chiswick Park/Gunnersbury/Turnham Green is a real mess for connectivity. If there is reluctance to loose running time, perhaps TG could substitute for Barons Court. Or maybe trains that stop at Turnham Green could run fast between Acton and Boston Manor? Totally agree, as living in the local area can be problematic when trying to get the Piccadilly line. Barons Court, as most people think from TG (including myself), has less passengers than TG. Thus I would naturally sacrifice the Barons Court stop for TG. But I don't see too many get off at BC from any train, yet District does have quite a few who get off at TG (wonder what would a Piccadilly line stop would do!) Trains non-stopping South Ealing that stop at Turnham Green could be a good idea, and could make use of the reliefs at that area. The stop at Northfields is too useful operationally afaik to be withdrawn (depot is there). I'm however unsure about the South Ealing demand though. Another suggestion from another forum is that the Uxbridge branch trains would stop at Turnham Green, switching onto reliefs at Hammersmith/Acton Town and slotting between the District trains, but that could be problematic in timetabling terms as Richmond branch is a lot better served than Ealing Broadway branch in practise (not in theory). I would prefer extending the times they stop there to until 0645hrs/after 2000hrs Mon-Sat, all day Sundays at least. Thus Mon-Sat early mornings and evenings/all day Sunday. People in the local area have been crying out desperately for at least a bit more stopping at Turnham Green from the Piccadilly line trains we just see pass every day (which is very annoying, I must say!). It is also very annoying that sometimes, people do have to travel backwards (in direction) to Hammersmith to move forwards (and vice versa)! One thing I'd note is the leading Question 8 in the consultation - Do TfL want to remove the Turnham Green stop or not? If they do, they just should say so in the consultation!
|
|
hobbayne
RIP John Lennon and George Harrison
Posts: 516
|
Post by hobbayne on Aug 28, 2013 9:56:26 GMT
Unfortuately, non stopping at certain stations to accomadate the TG customers will only cause unregular passengers to think the driver has forgotton to stop, and pull the handle down causing an even bigger problem. I once had this occur because someone wanted to get off at chiswick park. I was on the fast!!
|
|
l1group
7007+7032 on T004, Gunnersbury
Posts: 358
|
Post by l1group on Aug 28, 2013 10:10:05 GMT
Unfortuately, non stopping at certain stations to accomadate the TG customers will only cause unregular passengers to think the driver has forgotton to stop, and pull the handle down causing an even bigger problem. I once had this occur because someone wanted to get off at chiswick park. I was on the fast!! Possibly the person may have thought it was a District train? (my profile picture though CLEARLY shows the difference between the two!) Then - look how the Metropolitan line copes? fasts/semi fasts all the time! (well, peaks only nowadays). So why not just label the services as fast (non-stopping Hammersmith-Acton Town), semi-fast (stopping at Turnham Green ONLY between H'smith/AT) and all stations (District line) at Hammersmith/Acton Town?
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Aug 28, 2013 22:31:50 GMT
A station stop at TGrn EB would materially affect Arnos reversers and (bear in mind that I'm away from me notes <hem hem Peason> I suspect it might end up creating a need to step back at Cockfosters. T5 bound trains might be able to stop WB.
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Aug 28, 2013 22:48:17 GMT
Why does TfL assume trains stopping at Turnham Green would only benefit Turnham Green residents and commuters? I think another logical reason for trains to call there would be that it would make a good interchange for Richmond branch bound passengers and may help to relieve Earl's Court.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Aug 31, 2013 19:16:11 GMT
Theres two distinct reasons here. First is that Turnham Green passengers feel they deserve a better service than as currently offered, the second is a deluge of people who want to get to Richmond more easily. Perhaps, instead of these problems being added to each other to create the need to stop everything at Turnham Green, they could be subtracted from each other in such a way that solving one has a knockon effect for the other? The long time suggestion of a Bollo Lane interchange would seemingly achieve this if it were between the Piccadilly Line and the Overground, as it would remove interchanging passengers from the District at Turnham Green (giving local users more space), and improve connexions towards Richmond for Piccadilly line users from the east, and everyone from the west. It would also replace a direct connection lost by the closure of the South Acton shuttle. Picc trains could then non stop TG all the time, but it would be at the expense of stopping at Bollo Lane all the time... which would take the problem full circle somewhat, but with a different set of reasons though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 18:48:00 GMT
An interesting consultation, which I filled in as I commute on the Piccadilly fairly regularly.
Personally, I think an extra stop would cause more problems than bring benefits, it sounds like there is a risk of slowing the total journey time and causing a knock on effect to the outer extremities of the line.
And, on the odd occasion I've got out at Acton Town, the peak hour London bound trains look to be mostly wedged, the prospect of more people cramming on at Turnham Green doesn't sound like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Sept 1, 2013 19:05:09 GMT
And, on the odd occasion I've got out at Acton Town, the peak hour London bound trains look to be mostly wedged, the prospect of more people cramming on at Turnham Green doesn't sound like a good idea. I'm not saying you're wrong if in your experience that what you've seen but from four years' experience of commuting to and from Turnham Green it was often the case that 6, 7, 8 or 9 barely-filled trains heading towards central London would speed by.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Sept 2, 2013 8:08:40 GMT
Stopping at Turnham Green puts about 3 minutes extra running time on each train's journey, so six minutes in all for a rounder. This is acceptable during the early morning and late night periods as the service isn't so intense. But during the day the knock on effect is quite severe.
The section between Hammersmith and Acton Town is signalled for high speed running with the signalling sections being quite long. If the Piccadilly line were to stop at Turnham Green on a permanent basis then this area might have to be resignalled to maintain the current number of trains in service (79 in the peak period). If it wasn't resignalled, then the Piccadilly line would probably have to reduce line capacity resulting in a worse service to the rest of the line.
For these reasons, I can't see it happening.
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Sept 2, 2013 18:03:33 GMT
Perhaps the impact could be reduced if only certain trains called there e.g. all Uxbridge\Rayners Lane trains?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 2, 2013 19:37:01 GMT
Perhaps the impact could be reduced if only certain trains called there e.g. all Uxbridge\Rayners Lane trains? So how does that work ? A "Fast" non-stopper is immediately on the tail-lights of a stopper. Nonetheless, some pax for Turnham Green are on the wrong train so after waiting outside the station for the stopper to load/unload, it then sails through non-stop. Clever, or what?
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Sept 2, 2013 23:25:18 GMT
Perhaps the impact could be reduced if only certain trains called there e.g. all Uxbridge\Rayners Lane trains? That wouldn't work - it's all or nothing. The headways between stopping and non stopping trains would have to be in the region of 5 minutes instead of the 2.5/3 minutes we run now. This would result in an overall poorer service to the rest of the railway. For the sake of a few hundred people using Turnham Green, the customer disbenefit for the rest of the Piccadilly line can't be justified.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,409
|
Post by Chris M on Sept 2, 2013 23:55:47 GMT
Well a Bolo Lane interchange station could be constructed such that a fast train could overtake a stopper but (a) that wouldn't help in the short term, (b) the cost may not be justifiable (the current ethos after all is that simplicity is preferable to flexibility) and (c) we're getting firmly into RIPAS territory.
|
|
|
Post by sawb on Sept 3, 2013 15:00:53 GMT
I realise this isn't a bus forum, and this may be an idea for the RIPAS board, but what about rather than slowing the Picc down so that it serves Turnham Green, what about altering routing of local buses in the Acton/Turnham Green areas? What about altering the E3 routing so that after Acton Town staiton, it runs straight up Bollo Lane to Turnham Green station, rather than going via Acton Fires Station and King Street areas? Admittedly you would of course have to re-route other buses to cover the section that the E3 has lost, but how easy would this be to do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 15:14:56 GMT
I realise this isn't a bus forum, and this may be an idea for the RIPAS board, but what about rather than slowing the Picc down so that it serves Turnham Green, what about altering routing of local buses in the Acton/Turnham Green areas? What about altering the E3 routing so that after Acton Town staiton, it runs straight up Bollo Lane to Turnham Green station, rather than going via Acton Fires Station and King Street areas? Admittedly you would of course have to re-route other buses to cover the section that the E3 has lost, but how easy would this be to do? There is a plan (which has been waiting for an implementation date since 2009!) to extend route E10 from Ealing to Chiswick Business Park (the old bus works site, opposite Gunnersbury station) via Acton Town station and Bollo Lane. This might be an alternative (but rather slow) route for passengers connecting for Richmond.
|
|
l1group
7007+7032 on T004, Gunnersbury
Posts: 358
|
Post by l1group on Sept 4, 2013 7:18:49 GMT
I realise this isn't a bus forum, and this may be an idea for the RIPAS board, but what about rather than slowing the Picc down so that it serves Turnham Green, what about altering routing of local buses in the Acton/Turnham Green areas? What about altering the E3 routing so that after Acton Town staiton, it runs straight up Bollo Lane to Turnham Green station, rather than going via Acton Fires Station and King Street areas? Admittedly you would of course have to re-route other buses to cover the section that the E3 has lost, but how easy would this be to do? There is a plan (which has been waiting for an implementation date since 2009!) to extend route E10 from Ealing to Chiswick Business Park (the old bus works site, opposite Gunnersbury station) via Acton Town station and Bollo Lane. This might be an alternative (but rather slow) route for passengers connecting for Richmond. E10 is too infrequent to be used as a reliable interchange (every 20min afaik). It is also a few mins walk to get to Gunnersbury. The bus going south from there - 27 - doesn't stop at Gunnersbury Stn weirdly. Some really good joined up thinking would need to be done in order for E3 to be re-routed via Chiswick Park Station to Turnham Green Station (which sort of benefits me). I'd say to extend the 209 to Ealing Broadway via King St/Chiswick High Rd, current E3 to Gunnersbury Park, then via A406/Uxbridge Rd to Ealing Bdy. Or even just extend the 209 via King St/Chiswick High Rd, Chiswick Park Stn, Bollo Ln, Acton Town Stn, A406/Uxbridge Rd to Ealing Bdy, and not touch the E3. That E10 extension would be a slow connection as I'd guess, I've been waiting for the E10 extension to appear there in a very long time. I think it now depends on when the building adjacent to the supposed stand is finished! Which will be some time, if I'm honest!
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 4, 2013 10:37:27 GMT
I can't see a bus connection to Acton Town, however good, being accepted as a substitute for a train - espcially as the District already provides a service on that axis. Remember that people need to pay again to use a bus/tube combination, or tube/bus/tube as Richmond-Heathrow users would have to do. Even an OSI is negated if you use a bus to change stations.
Diverting the E3 to omit the major traffic objective of Acton High Street doesn't seem to be likely to be popular either.
As a user of Turnham Green in my student days, I appreciated the late night Picadilly service late at night when the Ditsrict was rather sparse, but during the day the District frequency was quite adequate. Later, when I commuted from Richmond, I found the alacrity with which LU would abandon the Richmond branch at the slightest excuse (presumably because they could blame any problems on BR, and it would be BR, not LU, station staff who would have to field any complaints) extremely frustrating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2013 11:56:23 GMT
I've filled in the consultation advising against stopping at Turnham Green, as I've noticed delays coming into Acton Town as early as 7am, so I can only imagine those delays getting worse with the extra stop. I do agree that the area is a bit of a pain in terms of transport connections, though. I believe the 27 will stop at Gunnersbury station from 8pm-8am soon, rather than coming into Chiswick Business Park, as there is no real demand for an overnight service there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2013 17:51:52 GMT
Stopping at Turnham Green puts about 3 minutes extra running time on each train's journey ... LU investigated this in detail a few years ago, and the figures they produced were additional journey time of 68 seconds eastbound and 71 seconds westbound, assuming 30 seconds dwell time. Yes, but around Turnham Green it's a compromise between the needs of stopping and non-stopping trains. The signalling will support stopping trains at 2-minute intervals, which is better than the peak timetabled 2½ minutes. Predictions of chaos and reduced line capacity if all trains stopped at TG are symptomatic of the Piccadilly line's policy of favouring service reliability above all other considerations. The current timetable requires frequent pauses "to regulate the service" because there is so much slack in it. Thousands of passengers have their journeys lengthened as a result. In these circumstances, the claimed difficulty in absorbing around 70 seconds lacks credibility IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 14, 2013 18:20:15 GMT
The section between Hammersmith and Acton Town is signalled for high speed running with the signalling sections being quite long. Yes, but around Turnham Green it's a compromise between the needs of stopping and non-stopping trains. . Is that so? On multitrack sections on NR the signal spacing is kept the same on both fast and slow lines - this makes it harder to misread signals intended for the adjacent track as being your own.
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Sept 15, 2013 10:56:54 GMT
Stopping at Turnham Green puts about 3 minutes extra running time on each train's journey ... LU investigated this in detail a few years ago, and the figures they produced were additional journey time of 68 seconds eastbound and 71 seconds westbound, assuming 30 seconds dwell time. Yes, but around Turnham Green it's a compromise between the needs of stopping and non-stopping trains. The signalling will support stopping trains at 2-minute intervals, which is better than the peak timetabled 2½ minutes. Predictions of chaos and reduced line capacity if all trains stopped at TG are symptomatic of the Piccadilly line's policy of favouring service reliability above all other considerations. The current timetable requires frequent pauses "to regulate the service" because there is so much slack in it. Thousands of passengers have their journeys lengthened as a result. In these circumstances, the claimed difficulty in absorbing around 70 seconds lacks credibility IMHO. Oh well, I only do this for a living. What do I know.
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Sept 29, 2013 23:05:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2013 14:54:30 GMT
I think it's brief, but not particularly passive aggressive. Number 20 is wrong, and the answer explains why. One thing I'm not clear on is why the Picc stops at Turnham Green at all, because it seems to cause a lot of dissatisfaction for those who use the station!
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Oct 6, 2013 17:07:50 GMT
I was referring more to the answer to question 24, sorry that this was unclear I do not think that there is much wrong with the answer to question 20 (although I am not sure whether the question actually is frequently asked, or was just chosen for effect)
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 6, 2013 19:21:34 GMT
For the sake of a few hundred people using Turnham Green, the customer disbenefit for the rest of the Piccadilly line can't be justified. How does Turnham Green compare with some of the quieter stations: if, say, Hyde Park Corner - which is not far from Green Park and Knightsbridge - were closed, and trains stopped at TG instead, how would that affect end to end times?
|
|
|
Post by rheostar on Oct 6, 2013 22:57:23 GMT
Actually, compared to Turnham Green, Hyde Park's quite busy.
However, it's the signalling sections that make the difference as opposed to the stations. The signalling sections at Turnham Green are set up for high speed running so are comparatively long. Piccadilly line trains currently run at a maximum line speed of 45 mph, but the sections between Hammersmith and Acton Town are actually set up for faster running; we used to do 55 mph. On the westbound, the outer home signal for Turnham Green, A630a, is half way between TG and Stamford Brook, with the inner home, A630b, half way between the outer and the platform. This gives us a comparatively low density of trains able to run through the area. With the current signalling set up and a train timetabled every 2.5 minutes during the peak periods, were we to stop at Turnham Green trains would be blocking back to Earl's Court in a relatively short period. To alleviate this, we’d have to cancel trains thus giving a poorer service to the rest of the line.
The eastbound’s signalled similar to the westbound.
In contrast, somewhere such as Hyde Park Corner has signals arranged for regular stopping. It has the normal arrangement of multi home signals and corresponding shorter signalling sections, allowing a greater density of trains in the area.
|
|
|
Post by djlynch on Oct 8, 2013 4:14:55 GMT
If this consultation results in a decision have all-day stopping at Turnham Green, what are the chances that it would begin before the new signalling eliminates block lengths as a concern? I know that the upgrade is several years out, but a part of me suspects that they're trying to sort out TG's future before drawing up a lot of plans, since part-time stopping may add some complexity to the ATO.
|
|