|
|
Post by melikepie on Apr 26, 2014 20:52:44 GMT
So when Crossrail is introduced, FGW units will be class 319s apparently. The frequency will increase on the Greenford Branch Line to 4tph but cutailed to a new platform at West Ealing. Also TfL and DfT were in talks over this line.
I know I'm regurgitating what we already know so far but that seems to still leave many unanswered questions. Will this line ever be electrified or is it to remain one of the last passenger diesel lines in London? Will it gain a Sunday service? Also where have TfL's talks gone? Are there any other updates?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 29, 2014 12:59:07 GMT
The answers to your questions are scatted throughout several threads on the boards, however to save trawling through them this is what we know:-
(1) The branch WILL be transferred to TfL control, the TfL takeover being a condition (as with the Romford - Upminster shuttle) of the mayor getting control of the West Anglia branches to Chingford, Endfield and Cheshunt (via Severn Sisters).
(2) The branch will remain diesel worked unless TfL can magic up the necessary finance (which given the financial pressures they are under is extremely unlikely)
(3) Given the above the stock situation remains fluid. Originally it was assumed the the Thames valley branches to Windsor, Marlow & Henley would remain diesel even after the GWML electrification, and thus subleasing a diesel unit from FGW at Reading would be possible. Now that the branches have been confirmed as getting wires that option is probably out. On the other hand the plans to electrify the Gospal Oak to Barking route would release its current diesel fleet for use elsewhere including the Greenford branch. Failing that maybe some sort of option involving a Chiltern unit might be doable.
(4) Service enhancements could yet happen but given its something of a forced takeover (TfL didn't really want it) we don't know how things will turn out in the future. As to the service frequency - a lot will depend on the number of units that the branch uses as I think you can just about get 3tph with a single unit - going to 4tph requires a second train plus crew which may not be justifiable by the revenue the branch generates.
(5) Its long term future - well nobody really knows. Back in BR days it might have got wired simply to remove the need for an isolated diesel operation (which is precisely why the Romford - Upminster line got done - Ilford could then become an EMU only depot) but these days the railway is simply too fragmented for that argument to work. The route itself has potential though for say a High Wycombe - West Ealing service to connect with Heathrow, plus diversionary uses so if the Chiltern lines were wired then the Greenford branch could conceivably be done to maintain diversionary routes for electric stock. The ability to turn things via the triangles at both ends is handy though its freight potential is limited by the lack of access to either Acton yard or the WLL / NLL that the GWML through Ealing provides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 18:02:02 GMT
Informed sources advise me that 3 Car Class 377's are planned for the Thames Valley branches as they can just fit into the platform at Bourne End reverse and them proceed to Marlow.
XF
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Apr 29, 2014 19:06:18 GMT
Maybe xfobe, but that's irrelevant to the Greenford branch
You cannot extend Drayton Green platform length to take 3 cars due to bridge(north) and junction(south). I lived there for nearly 30 years so have a fair idea of the locality...............
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459 
|
Post by Fahad on Apr 29, 2014 19:52:14 GMT
Looking at Google Maps there's enough room to squeeze in an extra two cars worth of platform before the junction This ignores the fact that the current two car DMUs are large enough, even in the peaks. Electrification would be nice but I think is significantly more of a challenge  |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Apr 29, 2014 19:55:27 GMT
@ Fahad
Looking at the REAL THING, there isn't.
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Apr 29, 2014 19:59:45 GMT
Why not? I too live in the area and frequently use the station, if that's your only objection to my contribution. I admittedly do not have 30 years of experience in using the station.
There would be some land take necessary, which I don't think would be politically acceptable, but I remain oblivious as to why it cannot be done. Please could you enlighten me?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Apr 29, 2014 20:15:58 GMT
Because its bang on the junction neck. A southbound spad would be on the point blades and a northbound pulling up short would foul the junction. Ask somebody in signalling for a definitive answer, but I bet you wouldn't get it approved.
Any signalling experts on-line??
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on Apr 29, 2014 20:26:46 GMT
Thanks  I'm sure there are examples of that elsewhere on the network, but I think you're right about a new example not being approved. (As someone who knows not much about signalling, I would suggest that perhaps the route into the station could only be cleared if the route onto the chord towards the GWML was also clear, but I admit that I do not know the signalling standards for new schemes) At any rate I think that the level of usage of the station and branch are a much better reason not to do it. I would expect that, as grahamhewett suggested a year ago or so, the next GW franchisee will subcontract the line to Chiltern |
|
|
|
Post by motorman on Apr 29, 2014 21:07:04 GMT
Looking long term the Greenford line could provide a useful link from the Chiltern lines to Heathrow. With future extention beyond Aylesbury a link from Milton Keynes could access Heathrow avoiding central London. It could also partly replace the lost connection between the Chiltern and GW main line lost when the High Wycombe and Bourne End link was severed. Should Crossrail eventually also provide a service to High Wycome as has been suggested elsewhere, the Greenford Line could proide that link as HS2 looks like using the line through Acton. Endless possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1018509 on Apr 29, 2014 21:27:02 GMT
As the line out of Paddington is going to be fully wired will this include North Pole Depot if it is not wired already and how far down the line that goes from Paddington to Greenford, South Ruislip and beyond is going to be wired?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 29, 2014 22:03:35 GMT
The main and relief lines between Paddington and Airport Junction are already wired for Heathrow Express and Connect trains. North Pole Depot is also wired as it used to service the Eurostar stock when they ran to Waterloo.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Apr 29, 2014 22:07:33 GMT
As the line out of Paddington is going to be fully wired will this include North Pole Depot if it is not wired already and how far down the line that goes from Paddington to Greenford, South Ruislip and beyond is going to be wired? North Pole depot is already wired isn't it?. There will be an electrification infill between Willesden Junction and Acton. The New North Main Line (Greenford and beyond via Perivale) will not be electrified, although way out of London parts of the Chiltern Main Line will be electrified (Aynho Junction to Leamington Spa and thence to Coventry). As previously mentioned the Greenford branch will not be electrified. Looking long term the Greenford line could provide a useful link from the Chiltern lines to Heathrow. With future extention beyond Aylesbury a link from Milton Keynes could access Heathrow avoiding central London. It could also partly replace the lost connection between the Chiltern and GW main line lost when the High Wycombe and Bourne End link was severed. Should Crossrail eventually also provide a service to High Wycome as has been suggested elsewhere, the Greenford Line could proide that link as HS2 looks like using the line through Acton. Endless possibilities. I doubt the Greenford branch will ever see Heathrow bound trains from Bucks. Any potential Heathrow access from the west or north would probably come by building a western rail link from Heathrow to the GWML, which has the backing of Network Rail. Heathrow rail link plan unveiled by Network Rail |
|
|
|
Post by cslusarc on May 18, 2014 23:49:10 GMT
Informed sources advise me that 3 Car Class 377's are planned for the Thames Valley branches as they can just fit into the platform at Bourne End reverse and them proceed to Marlow. I wonder how the future TSGN Franchise would feel about the loss of precious 3-car stock on the SN network. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2014 8:45:43 GMT
I think there are some wires getting crossed here. It has been determined that a 3 car train of electrostar vehicles will probably fit the platform at Bourne End without being foul of the junction and without any infrastructure changes. That's not the same thing as saying 377/3s are going to be moved from TSGN.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattdickinson on May 21, 2014 18:14:02 GMT
The answers to your questions are scatted throughout several threads on the boards, however to save trawling through them this is what we know:- (1) The branch WILL be transferred to TfL control, the TfL takeover being a condition (as with the Romford - Upminster shuttle) of the mayor getting control of the West Anglia branches to Chingford, Endfield and Cheshunt (via Severn Sisters). The DfT Consultation states that it will stay with the new Great Western franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by metroland on May 22, 2014 20:41:24 GMT
Because its bang on the junction neck. A southbound spad would be on the point blades and a northbound pulling up short would foul the junction. Ask somebody in signalling for a definitive answer, but I bet you wouldn't get it approved. Any signalling experts on-line?? Err why do all 3 coaches have to be in the platform? Surely with 3 car trains and Selective Door Opening you could have 3 car trains on the branch but only 2 cars in the platform at Drayton Green? (Admittedly I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head where 'overhanging' coaches foul a junction but with SDO the whole purpose is that not all the train needs to be on platform or am I missing something?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 21:50:19 GMT
With the amount of money being spent on CrossRail and various other infrastructure upgrades on the GWML, I would have thought demolition and reconstruction of the Drayton Bridge Road bridge to allow for platform lengthening at Drayton Green would be beer money compared to the rest schemes being delivered, and not a massive obstacle.
|
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 22, 2014 22:13:28 GMT
Because its bang on the junction neck. A southbound spad would be on the point blades and a northbound pulling up short would foul the junction. Ask somebody in signalling for a definitive answer, but I bet you wouldn't get it approved. Any signalling experts on-line?? Err why do all 3 coaches have to be in the platform? Surely with 3 car trains and Selective Door Opening you could have 3 car trains on the branch but only 2 cars in the platform at Drayton Green? One additional point is that the class 165 have 23 m coaches, but any replacement EMU would be formed of 20 m coaches, so the extra platform length isn't a full vehicle. Similarly, at Bourne End, the adjustment to the track layout won't be so big. 12 Car London Midland trains, calling at Wembley Central, overhang the pointwork at one end or the other including the junction to the freight yard when heading north. The northbound Scotrail sleepers, when they call at Watford Junction, also have their rear over pointwork to the south. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on May 23, 2014 6:51:38 GMT
When GNER ran the 373s on the Leeds services, they fouled the pointwork at the country end of at least some platforms at KGX meaning they effectively took up two platforms each.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 23, 2014 7:35:12 GMT
The answers to your questions are scatted throughout several threads on the boards, however to save trawling through them this is what we know:- (1) The branch WILL be transferred to TfL control, the TfL takeover being a condition (as with the Romford - Upminster shuttle) of the mayor getting control of the West Anglia branches to Chingford, Endfield and Cheshunt (via Severn Sisters). The DfT Consultation states that it will stay with the new Great Western franchise. That isn't what they were saying back in September last year www.londonreconnections.com/2013/price-oranges-dft-ask-tfl-take-greenford-upminsterHowever I don't despute things may have changed in the intervening months |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on May 26, 2014 8:50:33 GMT
Because its bang on the junction neck. A southbound spad would be on the point blades and a northbound pulling up short would foul the junction. Ask somebody in signalling for a definitive answer, but I bet you wouldn't get it approved. Any signalling experts on-line?? The signal with the junction indicator for the moves to West Ealing or Hanwell is before you get to the station. Drayton Green doesn't have an up starter, therefore no SPAD issue beyond the existing. Yes, a down train stopping short would potentially foul the junction but considering that NR release routes behind a train on a sectional basis I don't expect the junction at West Ealing (which is the one that could be headway critical) would remain locked. I can't see what the problem would be, though admittedly I'm looking at it from a concept more than a detailed proposal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 14:19:31 GMT
If the Greenford (G) branch line is only going to run between G and West Ealing (WE) I don't see that it will have much of a future. I expect it will still come in useful during the rush hours but will be very little used at other times. Giving the fact that the G branch line will not be running through to Paddington (P) when Crossrail starts what about the possibility of extending it at the other end from G. Could it join up with the central line at G and run out to Ruislip Gardens and then could a new junction be built so that it then joins the metropolitan line and continues to Uxbridge (a busy residential and business and shopping area). This will prove a very useful addition to the west London transport network. I would also suggest it should be rebranded as part of the London overground network.
It would also make sense if it could be extended beyond WE to Ealing Broadway (EB). So as not to get in the way too much of Crossrail I would suggest that after arrival at EB it could turn around by going onto what is now the opposite track (i.e. from P) and the track from P could be realigned by using the space between the slow and fast tracks which used to be the turn around siding when it used to be a G to EB service. This way the turn around would be in the middle of the Crossrail tracks so not causing any disruption to Crossrail traffic. It would not take up too much time at EB because either everyone would be getting off (upon arrival) or everyone getting on (upon departure).
If the above were to come to fruition then the G branch should be electrified - overhead from WE to South Greenford (SG) and then from SG underground lines could be laid so as to join the central line at G. This type of switch over is already in use on the overground North London line at Acton because it joins the district line track at Gunnersbury.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 14:50:07 GMT
Hi, welcome to the forum That sounds like it belongs over in RIPAS to me I, um, am no expert in this area but I can't ever see that happening. First of all, a flat junction with the Central line is all but unfeasible given the kind of frequencies the Central line gets up to. Second, the Central line is currently signalled with its own ATP and it's looking like it may go NoPO/DTO (even UTO) when it's upgraded and gets the NTfL. TfL are not going to want to introduce the kind of complexities we see on the Bakerloo line onto the Central as well, they want it self-contained so that you don't need two signalling systems, you can install PEDs (obviously you can't install PEDs where two different stocks share a line unless the doors are in the same place on both stocks), it makes level-access doable, which is a real problem where stocks mix as well, etc. etc. These problems already exist on the Met and Picc and that section of line can't take another line if you ask me. Oh and the cost of rebuilding around Ruislip Gardens would be huge, I think, I mean, you couldn't have it branch off the Central line outside of Ruislip Gardens, having served the same platforms, the depot is in your way, you'd have to rebuild the entire area. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 11, 2014 14:54:16 GMT
I really can't see anyone wanting to spend money on the Greenford branch beyond what is absolutely necessary to keep it open.
Extending over the Central Line: mixed working between mainline-sized trains and tube-sized trains (as happens north of Queens park and on nthe Uxbridge branch) is not allowed for new projects, so the stations on the Greenford branch would have to be modified to take tube-sized trains and the branch electrified - and possibly the platforms extended to take 8-car 1992 stock trains. Or the trains would have to run non-stop between Greenford and Ruislip.
Building a connection between Central and Met has been proposed before: whether trains using it should go to West Ealing instead of the Central Line core is debatable.
The existing service would of course be more useful if it could still run to Ealing Broadway, but there is a reason why it is being cut back to West Ealing, and lack of a turnback siding is not it. The problem, as I understand it, is the lack of paths between WE and EB.
Electrification may happen anyway: after Crossrail it will be a little isolated non-elctrified island, and thyese do sometimes get electrified simply to save the costs of running diesels back and forth from the nearest diesel depot still open. But the Greenford branch has another use: it is sometimes used to turn trains end for end (Old Oak Common - Greenford east curve - OOC). This is currently only possible for diesel trains: in the IEP/Crossrail era electrifying the loop may be very useful.
By the way, the section between Gunnersbury and Richmond is not electrified on the standard Underground 4-rail system. The switch over on the Overground is between overhead and the National Rail 3-rail system. Underground trains can also use it because there is a fourth rail, but it is held at zero (earth) voltage. To get an "Overground" class 378 to run between Greenford and Ruislip you would either need to convert that section of the Central to the same system, or convert some 378s to work on the 4-rail system (which would make them useless on the rest oif the LO network)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 15:40:07 GMT
There are a number of freights using the branch, most notable being the "binliners" going t/from Calvert.
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 11, 2014 16:29:35 GMT
The latest (2012-13) passenger figures show around 305,000 annual passenger entries/exits combined at the three branch stations.
For what that's worth?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Nov 11, 2014 20:37:41 GMT
There are things that can be done with the Greenford branch
There are things that cannot be done with the Greenford branch
Extending at Greenford is something that cannot be done without unjustifiable expense. Many people forget that the Central Line platforms are at a different grade to the old GWR ones
I am just waiting for somebody without any local knowledge to propose keeping the branch running through to Paddington and for Crossrail to use the new West Ealing bay platform.
Now, if you cut the Picc back to Rayners, with a few peaks running just to Ruislip (thus releasing a couple of Picc trains for the Heathrow branches), other things merit careful consideration
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Nov 11, 2014 20:49:21 GMT
Many people forget that the Central Line platforms are at a different grade to the old GWR ones True, but the shuttle emerges between the Central tracks, and at the same level. Replacing the bay with a "Y" would be possible. Whether running a 1992 stock shuttle from say Northolt to West Ealing is worth doing I can't say. (there must be paths available, represented by the trains that have turned off at North Acton for Ealing Bdy) You would need to electrify the line on the 4 rail system, (and may lose the ability for the line to take freight). The minimum length 1992 stock can run is 4 cars - can the platforms take a train that long? |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Nov 11, 2014 23:39:47 GMT
A four car 1992 train is 65m although I suppose with the gaps between the carriages it might be 67 or 68. According to WP, the line normally handles 2 car 165s. If it could handle 3 car trains then yes but because of the short platforms (although I don't know their length), probably not. 2 car 165s are around 46m
|
|
