|
Post by charleyfarley on Mar 15, 2012 11:00:39 GMT
If the District Line had held onto the Hounslow and Uxbridge branches - with the Piccadilly Line ending at Acton Town - would the line have been able to cope with the frequencies involved in extending the Hounslow branch to Heathrow? What changes might have been made to the existing pattern and level of service? Perhaps Upminster-Wimbledon/Richmond Tower Hill-Heathrow/Uxbridge with alternate Uxbridge branch trains serving Ealing Broadway
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Mar 15, 2012 12:01:03 GMT
As you probably know, I researched the history of the Heathrow extension from around 1972 and wrote a series of articles (one in parts) for Underground News on the extension authorisation procedures. I have seen previous extension proposals from around 1965 that always included the buiding of a new line from Feltham SR as it then was, to the airport, and even a monorail from Feltham! As you know runt of the District service to Hounslow West, i.e. peaks only, ceased in October 1964 and that meant no more stabling of Districts at Nothfields. At no stage have I ever seen any hint even of bringing back the District via Hounslow, though I have seen I think on this Forum, proposals in the past that had the District run to Feltham, and then to Richmond, in a big loop. I am not sure whether the District was to run to Heathrfow or just straight through from Hounslow East say to Richmond.
The reason why the Hatton Cross section was built the way it is, namely cut and cover and to tube gauge was one of cost saving. The tunnels are just below the surface and to make them deeper to accommodate sub-surface stock would have cost considerably more. The bridge over the River Crane had to be built as the engineers French found that the mud at the bottom of the river was so deep that piles put in disappeared! I have often wondered whether the tunnels could actualy have been made deeper if money was no object. David Bird who was the overall Civil Engineer i/c was a friend but I never asked him regrettably. It was however bad enough as built! If a decision had been made to at least run to Hounslow Central was scotchewd because the bridges over Lampton Road and Kingsley Road were replaced but to tube gauge only. Up until then it would have been possible I am sure to have rebuilt Hounslow West to enable sub-surface stock to terminate there and have a cross-over.
I should like to know where the released trains were used on after October 1964. Were they used to supplement existing services or replace older stock?
I also cannot see how the Picc could possibly reverse at Acton Town all day, unless more reversing sidings had been built at the West end. There is just the one and always has been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 12:28:41 GMT
"I should like to know where the released trains were used on after October 1964. Were they used to supplement existing services or replace older stock?"
Oracle - Are you referring to the District stock?
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Mar 24, 2012 15:08:32 GMT
Yes, please. I am sure that I saw here once that trains stabled at Northfields for one more week after HW lost its service. After that, what happened to the stock that was not required or was it just added to the pools at Ealing Common and Upminster Depots? I have only seen a photo with a red train at Northfields, taken near the end of the service so am not sure if CO/CP Stock was booked or whether R Stock was also used.
The annoying thing is that whilst my grandmother lived in HW, and we used to visit prior to 1965 when she died, we never went on the Underground into London when the DR was running: it was always off-peak or at weekends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 15:45:47 GMT
Not sure about CP Stock - will check the relevant (three) WTTs next time I am at Acton to see if any stabled at Northfields.
There was a general stock reduction because of falling passenger numbers and several Q Stock cars were scrapped 1964-1966.
82 trains were required in (Sepotember) 1963, 75 in (October) 1964, upped to 78 in (November) 1965.
There was also a reduction of services on the tube lines, which threw up 1938 Stock for the Northern City in 1966.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Mar 24, 2012 16:39:09 GMT
Not sure about CP Stock - will check the relevant (three) WTTs next time I am at Acton to see if any stabled at Northfields. I've pretty sure I've got them here in 'Timetable Towers' but packed away in a box. What numbers? I have a vague suspicion that a couple of CPs did stable at Northfields. I also cannot see how the Picc could possibly reverse at Acton Town all day, unless more reversing sidings had been built at the West end. There is just the one and always has been. Never say always! When Acton Town new 'box opened there was *no* reversing siding on the west side. Acton Town new box opened on the 23rd January 1932 (Supp to TN 3/32), the LER siding was put in between the two LER Hounslow roads on Sunday 19th June (Supp. to TN 25/32: Alterations to Tracks and Signals West and East of Acton Town). Between December 1931 and December 1932 (when the four tracks came in at Boston Manor) there were no less than 11 perils for the stageworks in sorting out Acton Town.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 20:56:17 GMT
The WTTs would be 86, 87 and 88.
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Mar 25, 2012 3:18:44 GMT
There was also a reduction of services on the tube lines, which threw up 1938 Stock for the Northern City in 1966. Wasn't that due also to the life expired Standards?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 10:54:16 GMT
Not necessarily, because a small order of extra 1962s was contemplated at one stage. See page 710 of "The Northern Line Extensions", pub LURS November 2011.
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Mar 30, 2012 21:03:38 GMT
As you probably know, I researched the history of the Heathrow extension from around 1972 and wrote a series of articles (one in parts) for Underground News on the extension authorisation procedures. I have seen previous extension proposals from around 1965 that always included the buiding of a new line from Feltham SR as it then was, to the airport, and even a monorail from Feltham! As you know runt of the District service to Hounslow West, i.e. peaks only, ceased in October 1964 and that meant no more stabling of Districts at Nothfields. At no stage have I ever seen any hint even of bringing back the District via Hounslow, though I have seen I think on this Forum, proposals in the past that had the District run to Feltham, and then to Richmond, in a big loop. I am not sure whether the District was to run to Heathrfow or just straight through from Hounslow East say to Richmond. The reason why the Hatton Cross section was built the way it is, namely cut and cover and to tube gauge was one of cost saving. The tunnels are just below the surface and to make them deeper to accommodate sub-surface stock would have cost considerably more. The bridge over the River Crane had to be built as the engineers French found that the mud at the bottom of the river was so deep that piles put in disappeared! I have often wondered whether the tunnels could actualy have been made deeper if money was no object. David Bird who was the overall Civil Engineer i/c was a friend but I never asked him regrettably. It was however bad enough as built! If a decision had been made to at least run to Hounslow Central was scotchewd because the bridges over Lampton Road and Kingsley Road were replaced but to tube gauge only. Up until then it would have been possible I am sure to have rebuilt Hounslow West to enable sub-surface stock to terminate there and have a cross-over. I should like to know where the released trains were used on after October 1964. Were they used to supplement existing services or replace older stock? I also cannot see how the Picc could possibly reverse at Acton Town all day, unless more reversing sidings had been built at the West end. There is just the one and always has been. Begs the question would it cost a lot to rebuild the extension to sub-surface dimensions?
|
|
|
Post by charleyfarley on Mar 30, 2012 22:32:23 GMT
Begs the question would it cost a lot to rebuild the extension to sub-surface dimensions? It would cost millions at today's prices and so would never happen. It was built a certain way, serves its purpose and so no need to change it now.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Mar 31, 2012 7:15:08 GMT
The reason why the Hatton Cross section was built the way it is, namely cut and cover and to tube gauge was one of cost saving. The tunnels are just below the surface and to make them deeper to accommodate sub-surface stock would have cost considerably more. The bridge over the River Crane had to be built as the engineers French found that the mud at the bottom of the river was so deep that piles put in disappeared! I have often wondered whether the tunnels could actually have been made deeper if money was no object. I've made mention on this Forum before that when giving an LURS lecture Mr J. Graeme Bruce, former Operating Manager of LT Railways, said his biggest regret while in office, was signing against authorisation for the Hatton Cross line to be of surface stock gauge, done purely on the grounds of cost.
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Mar 31, 2012 8:45:06 GMT
It was touch and go as to whether the link was ever going to be built at one stage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2012 8:05:55 GMT
If the District Line had held onto the Hounslow and Uxbridge branches - with the Piccadilly Line ending at Acton Town - would the line have been able to cope with the frequencies involved in extending the Hounslow branch to Heathrow? What changes might have been made to the existing pattern and level of service? Perhaps Upminster-Wimbledon/Richmond Tower Hill-Heathrow/Uxbridge with alternate Uxbridge branch trains serving Ealing Broadway Don't see how this would work. Fundamentally four western branches would divide the service from central London between them, 1/4 of the trains for Richmond, Heathrow, Ealing Broadway and Uxbridge. Even at 30 tph through central would mean at most 7.5 tph on each branch, which would be vastly inadequate for modern demands, especially for Heathrow - which gets 12 tph currently from the Piccadilly Line and realistically needs more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2012 21:26:41 GMT
Further to my post of 24 March, I have checked WTTs 86,87 and 88. No trains of CP Stock were booked to start or stable at Northfields depot. Whether they ever did (like, in an emergency) we will probably never know. Likewise, we'll probably never know if they went to Hounslow West or not.
In WTT 86, there were 4xCP6, 2 from Upminster and 2 from Parsons Green.
In WTT 87 there were 7xCP6, 2 from Upminster, 1 from Triangle sidings, 2 from Parsons Green and 2 from Ealing Common.
The same applied in WTT 88.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2012 19:04:00 GMT
When I started on LT in March of '65 and became a DR Guard at Northfields, (eventually running regularly with Jimmy Cripps) it was purely a District booking on point. That said, those of us that lived East of NF actually booked on with the SM at Acton and he 'phoned us over to NF. As far as I recall there were no scheduled DR stabling at Northfields although that is not to say it wasn't used as a emergency reversing point if the service was disrupted - or if a driver took a wrong un!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2012 20:16:20 GMT
Further to my post of 7 April, I have checked WTTs 86, 87 and 88 in detail and no CP Stock trains were scheduled to operate to and from Hounslow West. This was left to the Q and R Stocks, both in 6- and 8-car formations.
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 5, 2012 9:47:45 GMT
Which routes did the CP stock operate? I think the Q stock mainly ran the Putney-Edgware Road service. The CP stock would have run mainly in 6 car trains? M-T-M+M-T-M Most 2 car units were lengthened to 3 cars after moving from the Met by using Q38 trailers. When did CP (CO/CP?) operate the ELL? I guess a few 2 car units would have been used for this service M-M+M-T-M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 15:56:52 GMT
I have had a further closer look at the three WTTs when the Hounslow service was operating, from when CP Stock began on the District in 1962.
When 'new' to the District (in 1962) all four CP6's worked all routes during the day, except to and from Hounslow West - i.e. Ealing/Richmond/Wimbledon - Edgware Road/Mansion House/Barking/Dagenham East/Upminster.
The Hounslow service then, what there was of it*, comprised a mix of R6, R8 and Q8 in 1962-64.
* There were 7 District departures from Hounslow West at generally 15-minute intervals between 07.30 and 09.00. In the evening peak there were 5 arrivals at Hounslow West between 17.46 and 18.46. There was then no District Hounslow service on Saturdays, apart from 2 starts and stablers at Northfields (1xQ6 and 1xR6).
As a matter of interest, the Hounslow service in September 1959 comprised 18 departures from Hounslow West between 05.02 and 08.47 and there were 11 arrivals between 17.15 and 18.44. In both directions, in the main part of the peak, this was every 7-8 mins. There were also several workings in the counterflow direction in the peaks, 5 in the morning, 4 in the evening, in addition to local (District) workings to and from Acton Town. On Saturdays there were 3 early departures from Hounslow West (05.02, 05.43 and 05.54) only, with 6 arrivals in the midday peak between 13.02 and 13.38.
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on May 14, 2012 1:41:00 GMT
If the District Line had held onto the Hounslow and Uxbridge branches - with the Piccadilly Line ending at Acton Town - would the line have been able to cope with the frequencies involved in extending the Hounslow branch to Heathrow? What changes might have been made to the existing pattern and level of service? Perhaps Upminster-Wimbledon/Richmond Tower Hill-Heathrow/Uxbridge with alternate Uxbridge branch trains serving Ealing Broadway How would Rayners and Ruislip figured in to short Districts had they kept the Uxbridge branch?
|
|
|
Post by charleyfarley on May 14, 2012 5:06:36 GMT
Don't see the point of Ruislip reversers on the Picc. If they've gone that far beyond Rayners Lane, why not continue to Uxbridge? I've been on Uxbridge branch Picc trains between the peaks and they're almost empty. The Picc service beyond Rayners Lane should be 0700-1000 and 1600-1900 weekdays. In terms of Ruislip's question, is there some operational reason why District Line trains could not reverse at Rayners Lane?
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on May 14, 2012 6:26:15 GMT
With S stock and the new signalling the opportunity is there to reinstate the District to Uxbridge and send the Piccadilly line to Ealing Broadway.
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on May 14, 2012 9:10:41 GMT
In terms of Ruislip's question, is there some operational reason why District Line trains could not reverse at Rayners Lane? There's AFAICR a speed restriction under certain bridges for D stock on the S. Harrow/Rayners Lane section.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on May 14, 2012 9:27:38 GMT
mrfs42..............AFAICR the speed restriction under bridges for surface stock is not just Rayners/S Harrow, but Rayners right down to where the District & Picc currently split twixt Acton Town & N Ealing. I THINK this is more to do with width than height. About 40+ years ago l remember seeing old rusting red on white enamel signs on some of the parapets - was the speed limit then 15mph??
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on May 14, 2012 11:57:08 GMT
Don't see the point of Ruislip reversers on the Picc. If they've gone that far beyond Rayners Lane, why not continue to Uxbridge? Whilst there's no real increase in the number of Met trains [per hour] during the peaks, I would expect that there'll be an increase in the recovery time allowed at Uxbridge. So longer platform occupation times is a factor. A more major factor however is that the Piccadilly line frequency doubles on the Rayners Lane branch during the peaks. The easiest way to swallow those extra trains is to use the one asset that is otherwise sitting idle - Ruislip siding!! In terms of Ruislip's question, is there some operational reason why District Line trains could not reverse at Rayners Lane? In simple terms, there is no reason why District line trains can't reverse at Rayners Lane. However, speed restrictions aside (see below), the Rayners Lane service currently doubles to every 5 minutes during the peaks - that would be difficult to accommodate on the rest of the District alongside current service patterns and with the capacity of the current signalling. Don't forget the Circle line has to be accommodated too!! The threat of the District once again going to Rayners Lane has long been threatened - but lets keep things in perspective for now........this thread is only asking what may have been, not what will be!! mrfs42..............AFAICR the speed restriction under bridges for surface stock is not just Rayners/S Harrow, but Rayners right down to where the District & Picc currently split twixt Acton Town & N Ealing. I THINK this is more to do with width than height. "Surface stock" is subject to a 15 mph speed restriction under all bridges between Hangar Lane and South Harrow - this IS related to height clearance, NOT width clearance. Don't forget - it was the District that built the branch!!!
|
|