Edgware Road - Wimbledon

images3.fotopic.net/?iid=ymy3zk&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

Something like that?

Joe's grade is Duty Manager (Trains) - better known as 'DMT' and I know him extremely well, and have done for several years.

It's not a question of whether or not I'm 'touchy' as you put it, it's simply a question of how these changes would improve the service to passengers.

The essential points are that the destinations on the front of the trains and platform describers would not alter. Let's be practical here - on westbound trips once at Earls Court all passengers want to know is where the train is heading - is it an Ealing Broadway, a Richmond, a Wimbledon or an Olympia (or possibly it's either being 'short tripped' or is timetabled to terminate at some intermediate point which - in reality- really means either Putney Bridge or Parsons Green). In any of these scenarios where a train started its trip from is of no interest to the passenger at all; neither do they care what stock it is - all they want to do is get to their destination as soon as possible! Quick journeys and short waits = happy passengers

My point is that though you can rename part of the service - but it makes no difference to the passenger's "experience" to their journey.

At present trains from Edgware Road always arrive at Platform 4 at Earls Court and trains from Wimbledon always arrive at Platform 2 - they have to - there are no crossovers to allow the use of the other two platforms. BUT remember that trains ex-Edgware Road only make up half the service to Wimbledon, and these can be routed to either westbound platform! And this is why my standpoint is that to westbound passengers on the Wimbledon branch the proposition of renaming part of the service makes no difference!

I am not proposing that the eastbound service is a little different, and it is of course far from unknown for passengers to board a train going in the wrong direction - i.e. they want a city bound train and get on a HSK/Edgware Road servce and vice-versa. This is more to do with just boarding 'a train' without checking its destination at all (or asking staff - of which there is invariably plenty) which train they need to board.

Hence my position that a renaming of part of the service would do nothing to improve or enhance a passengers journey.

I hope that helps to clarify my position!

Alright, thanks for the clear answer. I think it will make things a bit more clear. People unfamiliar with a line might not understand what a complex 'line' it is, which is why I think something like this could help.
For example, if someone at Notting Hill Gateis trying to go to Fulham Broadway, they might very well have looked at the map or the planner and found out that it's on the Wimbledon branch. So they will be looking for a train to Wimbledon. What might happen is that a train that short-trips and runs to Parsons Green might come in first. This person would probably not recognise that Parsons Green is on the same branch (there are so many after all!) and will get him/her to his/her destination faster than waiting for a train to Wimbledon. For a not very familiar passenger it's quite unclear that trains running between Earl's Court and Edgware Road can only go on the Wimbledon branch. Or the Kensington Olympia shuttle if you would call that a "Wimbleware". I wouldn't mind branding that as a specific shuttle service to clear up even more confusion, actually.
If, however, we would have a "Wimbleware" line, it'd be more clear to that person that what he/she wants is a southbound Wimbleware.

I know the tube map at Earl's Court does actually show that trains from Richmond / Ealing do not go to Edgware Road, but because it's all the District Line and it's all one colour, I think many people won't actually look into that little detail, which has only been added in the last few years I think(?)

What I'd like to see is basically the same as what's happened with the Metropolitan Line, which has also "split up" in to a Jubilee, Metropolitan, East London and H&C line. I know that in that case it involved more than just making things clear for passengers, and that they do use different trains for example. But I think it would definitely make things more clear if the definition of a "tube line" would be a line that may consist out of different branches, but join up together in central London.

If you look at Germany, for example, you'll see that many networks see every service as its own line with a different number.
This Hannover map for example, shows different (but similar) colours for different services, even though they share the same track in the central section.
matthijsgall.nl/uploaded_images/Hannover_Stadtbahn.pdf

I think this is a matter that you and I must agree to disagree about!

Whilst I fully understand the gist of your position, I stick with my view that there are too many possible variations that can really make it practical.

I accept that there around the world various ideas for the best way to get passengers in the direction they want to go, none are perfect (though interesting to see that the Stadtbahnnetz diagram you link to shows remarkable similarities to the iconic London Underground map )

I'm afraid I don't think that the current arrangement justifies the proposition you make. IMHO it ain't broke, so don't fix it; that isn't meant to sound complacent nor 'resistent to change', it's my firmly held belief.

Anyone else got any views perhaps?

Well, I am a London taxpayer, and I totally agree with the "gaffers" here that re-branding a branch of a line would be a total waste of money. Makes you wonder why the politicians don't insist on it ;D

The only improvements at Earl's Court (and please move this to its own thread if that seems like a good idea) that I can think of would be

(1) to install crossovers to allow trains to/from Wimbledon to access all four platforms - but there's no room to do this, although it would be particularly useful westbound as I get the impression (which is no doubt about to be corrected or confirmed) that High Street - Olympia shuttles sometimes change drivers at EC, and very very occasionally this leads to a long dwell time - anyway, that idea isn't practicable AFAIK;

(2) what should be doable at some stage is to have a "first train out" indicator (as there is on the eastbound) on the westbound to cover those occasions when both westbound platforms have a Wimbledon train. Mind you, I have more than once known the second train out to be given the road to West Brompton, so perhaps even that's not such a good idea. I'm sure someone here knows why it happens.

Speaking again as a District Line driver, who's fond of lingering at Earl's Court eastbound answering questions whilst waiting for his train to come in ....

I say again, I understand the suggestion originally made and on the face of it, it is not unreasonable, but in practise I don't see that there is any point to it.

It doesn't really add anything because there would be no visible difference to the trains or destination indicators.

The tube map is already drawn to show trains originating from Edgware Road can't go to Ealing or Richmond (which in it's self is misleading as quiet a few trains run from High Street to Ealing).

Trains on the Olympia service especially are diverted off to other destinations, (eg, one may go High Street to Richmond and in turn be replaced later by diverting one originating from Upminster). C stock trains are also, if less often subject to diversions.

Whilst "wimbleware" trains ostensibly use platforms 2 and 4, they can use any platform if they have been off on a diverted jaunt ! (There is room by the way to reinstall points to allow trains originating from Wimbledon into either platform at Earl's Court e/b, it keeps being talked about and would greately improve the opperating problems experienced at this location)

The classic destination indicators are pretty clear, I personally think if the "High Street Kensington and Edgware Road" display was changed to the same format as all the others ie. just showing in full size letters "EDGWARE ROAD" it would help.
(I see no reason why dot matrix indicators can't be fitted on the platform as well to supplement the classic displays, but remember the platforms and order of trains is often not decided by the signaller until the train is at the home signal !)

The biggest change that would help passenger confusion is changing the enameled stations list display at the bottom of the Earl's Court Road end steps. It geographically shows the split of tracks after Earl's so the Edgware Road brach moves off to the right and the Upminster to the left, which is correct but gives the impression that the Edgware Road service runs from the platform on the right (platform 1) which it rarely does ! This is the biggest cause of passengers boarding the wrong train. (A re-brand would make no difference to this.)

When S stock appears universally, there would no longer be any need to segregate the services at all, they could be interworked with Edgware Road trains originating from Richmond, Ealing or Wimbledon .... (or Uxbridge ) A rebranding could cause problems with such flexibility.

I remain of the view that this was an excellent topic for debate worthy of being brought up, I think we have to accept that all the comments here from operational LUL staff have been forced to conclude that the con's outweigh the pro's !!

You've had a picture from me before of a C stock Ex-Edgware Road heading for Richmond ... so how about a suitable illustration of a C stock for Edgware Road in Earl's Court platform 1 (inacessible from the Wimbledon branch) ... you can also see the accurate, but misleading station name list that lets the unwary think all Edgware Road trains run from "the right" (behind the guy in the blue t-shirt)

D stocks are too long for at least some of the platforms between HSK and Edgware Road, which is why they don't go up that way.

Given this it wouldn't surprise me if they are too long for some signalling sections, but I don't recall anything about their being out of gauge

If a D stock accepts the route into platform 2 at High St Ken (normally used for going to Edgware Road) it isn't a major problem because the platform is long enough for D stocks and there is a wrong road starter allowing trains to reverse. In fact it's a perfectly legitimate move, albeit very rare because it holds up the Circle and Edgware Rd services.

Are you talking about the one that is half and half chris?

I suspect the trailing crossover is the culprit here - when there have been closures between Earl's Court and Whitechapel on the District, I have never seen any attempts to use platform 2 for reversing the Ealing/Richmond services. Admittedly, the turnaround time would block the northbound Wimbleware services, but it would quite neatly solve the problem that DD mentions WRT underused equipment.

Has the T-cup and have those other plans on that site ever actually been confirmed by TfL? It isn't in London 2020 and all the other future plans that I have read, as far as I can recall.

Now that we've got onto the T-cup, I'm wondering how many passengers (say per hour) travel from Baker Street and points east to Bayswater and points west (and vice versa) - these will all have to change at Edgware Road when the T-cup is produced. And if, as I suspect, most of the "Wimblewares" are cut back to HSK, there will be more people changing there, and greater use there of the HSE's favourite sub-surface platform... I mean, who's going to waste money on building a passenger footbridge at the south end of HSK ?

Also I would expect that usage of Praed Street will decline and usage of Paddington Suburban increase - guess which one has the greater platform capacity

T-cups belong in signal cabins, not in timetables ;D

I think this is a very interesting discussion about the Teacup line. I suppose we're going a bit off-topic now, but I thought some of you might be interested.
groups.google.com/group/uk.transport.london/browse_thread/thread/a236e85eb0849bab/9e237bc34e497c38?q=teacup&lnk=ol&
(I hope that link works without being logged in)

At the risk of appearing a smug smart rear, I actually mentioned the T Cup concept in an item on my web site well in excess of three years ago!

Have a look at www.trainweb.org/districtdave/html/upgrade_plans.html

Whilst I confirm that this was (and as I allude to in the article) a vision of what was in the semi public domain at the time I am a little surprised that the discussion here seems to think of this as something revolutionary.

You will see too that Tubeprune also discusses the issue in his article at www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SSL%20PPP%20Upgrade.htm

So - if you want to keep in the know read this site ()sorry - couldn't resist!!)