Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2007 22:48:47 GMT
Well, I do my best to organise my life to avoid travelling in the peaks, but I used the District (from Bayswater to Hammersmith) this evening, and what struck me was (1) the smart station work at Earl's Court, I had the sense that you guys actually enjoy getting folk home after work  (2) the significantly heavier loading on the Wimbledon than the Richmond train (btw do Richmonds or Ealing Broadways carry more passengers?) Popping in here to-night the South Acton shuttle thread set me wondering - is the line from Earl's Court to Wimbledon running at capacity (in terms of tph) & if not would there be any merit in running EC-W shuttles in the peaks? I guess the argument against would the reversing problem at EC and/or EC platform capacity. My apologies if this one has already been done to death  |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 9, 2007 23:47:10 GMT
AFAIA the usage goes something like this (with actual frequencey (minutes) in brackets):
Wimbledon: 40% (4-6)
Ealing Broadway: 30% (8-10)
Richmond: 25% (8-10)
Olympia:5% (17)
So yes, the Wimbledon branch is by far the busiest.
Capacity wise, signals determine the maximum frequencey - once we get past Putney Bridge we are singnalled by network rail at wimbledon. Because they use less signals, the branch is basically running at capacity.
You are correct about reversing at Earls Court - apart from a few trains at the start/end of service, it just wouldn't be practical...............especially during the peaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Jan 10, 2007 13:31:26 GMT
So Wimbledon gets the lion's share!
Hmmm, if you discount the runs from Edgware Road, so the trains East of Earl's Court, then is the result roughly the same?
Off-peak what proportion of Upminster trains go through to Wimbledon?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 10, 2007 13:57:40 GMT
The off-peak service pattern is:
Upminster - Wimbledon every 10 mins
Upminster - Richmond every 10 mins
Tower Hill - Ealing Broadway every 10 mins
Edgware Road - Wimbledon every 10 mins
High St Ken - Olympia every 17 mins
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2007 19:04:42 GMT
Many thanks for the replies, and especially Colin's. Just to keep the conversation going, really  does anyone know if any planning work (including costings) has been done on - increasing the signalling capacity between Putney Bridge and Wimbledon; - bringing back into use a third platform at South Kensington to allow trains to reverse there. Whatever such measures would cost, it would surely be a small fraction of the long-mooted but never started Chelsea-Hackney line, would it not? |
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Jan 10, 2007 19:20:41 GMT
Is there any SCHEDULED runs to Olympia apart from trains starting at HSK or ECT?
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Jan 10, 2007 19:27:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by District Dave on Jan 10, 2007 21:42:27 GMT
Is there any SCHEDULED runs to Olympia apart from trains starting at HSK or ECT? Train 152 starts from Upminster Mon - Fri, goes to EBDY, then HSK and then becomes a standard Olympia service. At the end of traffic 152 returns to Upminster ex Olympia at about 23:40 IIRC to stable. 151 starts ex Ealing Common Depot, as does 127 which does the Olympias until 152 arrives as detailed above. There are no other timetabled services now which use Olympia. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Jan 10, 2007 22:34:21 GMT
does anyone know if any planning work (including costings) has been done on - increasing the signalling capacity between Putney Bridge and Wimbledon; Although the infrastructure on this section is 'owned' by LUL, it is operated & maintained by Network Rail = lot's of 'red tape'. Some 'mainline' trains also run between East Putney & Wimbledon - that really kills off any notion of putting more signals in as the braking capacity of their trains is a factor in the current positioning of signals. I could list a host of other reasons why it wouldn't happen - but I wouldn't want to bore you all to death. - bringing back into use a third platform at South Kensington to allow trains to reverse there. There are already plans in place to add two sidings here for S stock stabling (because of re-modelling at Triangle sidings) - so that's pretty much seen off your other idea. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2007 22:58:10 GMT
I didn't say they were good ideas  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2007 23:01:27 GMT
40, 30 and 25%? Pretty abysmal load factors! Time to halve frequency to save some cash!
(When Hong Kong's metro system got privatised, that's exactly what they did - awful for us passengers!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2007 23:04:48 GMT
40, 30 and 25%? Pretty abysmal load factors! Time to halve frequency to save some cash! I think you've misunderstood Colin's post. He's saying that of the passengers travelling west from Earls Ct, 40% go to Wimbledon and so on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2007 1:09:20 GMT
- bringing back into use a third platform at South Kensington to allow trains to reverse there. There are already plans in place to add two sidings here for S stock stabling (because of re-modelling at Triangle sidings) - so that's pretty much seen off your other idea. Not quite. It depends on where the sidings will go. Based upon the shape of the 'hole in the ground' occupied by the DR at South Kensington, I suspect that the pair of sidings will go in the footprint occupied by the prefab buildings next to the floodgate. What innocentabroad is suggesting is the restoration of the out of the use e/b Met platform within the station limits, and converting one of the existing platforms into a single-ended/double-ended bay to provide additional east-to-west (or west-to-east) reversing capacity. Unfortunately for his idea, doing so would be expensive, due to the double tunnels west of South Kensington and the potential for confusion as punters dash back and forth between the e/b Met and bay platforms when the job is up the wall. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2007 18:11:31 GMT
Yes, TOKEA's post pretty well describes what I had in mind - the new platform for inner rail services to Sloane Square and beyond, the existing inner rail face as the bay and the other face as now. So all trains to Gloucester Road would depart from the (existing) island platform - if that's doable at Earl's Court, it's doable at South Ken. (Unless I've misunderstood him & he's referring to a platform on the "outer rail" side of the station. If so, surely it would be possible to run almost all Wimbledon trains via the "middle" platform face & in any case to tell passengers to take the first train and change at Gloucester Road if necessary.) On reflection, it would only be worth doing if the District is a significant net importer of passengers (from the street and the Piccadilly line) at Earl's Court. I would assume that no one changes from the Picc to the real railway ;D at EC unless they want a Wimbledon train (or West Ken, perhaps), but how the other numbers work out I've no idea. The real reason it's not that good an idea, I suppose, is the difficulty of working extra trains across the two junctions between EC and Gloucester Road, which I presume are working to capacity for much of the day (Uncle Ken will want to know why if they're not  ) |
|
does anyone know if any planning work (including costings) has been done on
)
