|
Post by ijmad on Nov 7, 2022 18:21:44 GMT
The most recent iteration of this idea floating around seemed to be to transfer the Ealing Broadway branch over to the Piccadilly Line but also for it to keep the Uxbridge Branch, rather than a swap. The uplift from 24tph to 32tph (or higher) on new signalling would provide 6tph to Ealing Broadway, a couple extra for Uxbridge, and then the new stock order would enable Northfields terminators to be extended to Heathrow to provide extra capacity there. This would eliminate the shared track at Ealing Common which could be a problem if the lines end up with different signalling systems.
But given the Piccadilly is no-longer getting resignalled in the near future, seems likely things will stay as they are.
Though is it really practical for the line to have four Western branches? (I suppose we could say 3 given Heathrow's only diverge for a single extra station, but still!)
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 7, 2022 20:02:57 GMT
Alternative service patterns were considered in the 2005 West London Study - see Underground News January 2014. Richmond and Wimbledon could do with boosted peak services, and current plan is to provide those as part of Picc Line Upgrade as above. Funding for Picc resignalling is still being sought to follow upon new train deliveries. My question was about current SSR resignalling coping with that uplift, or whether further boost will be required. It sounds like some trackwork may be required at the termini to speed reversing.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Nov 7, 2022 23:43:08 GMT
This would eliminate the shared track at Ealing Common which could be a problem if the lines end up with different signalling systems. You can't eliminate the shared working through Acton Town and Ealing Common unless you can find an alternative location to stable all the S stocks that currently stable in Ealing Common depot.
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Nov 8, 2022 1:32:07 GMT
This would eliminate the shared track at Ealing Common which could be a problem if the lines end up with different signalling systems. You can't eliminate the shared working through Acton Town and Ealing Common unless you can find an alternative location to stable all the S stocks that currently stable in Ealing Common depot. Wouldn't what is currently the eastbound District Line track between Acton Town and Turnham Green be available for depot moves since it'd no-longer be in revenue service? That does seem to get all the way to the depot. Mind you, not enough layperson knowledge here to know if it'd be practical to get to/from a depot using a fairly long stretch of single track, but combined with those new points for reversing and other sidings being placed around Turnham Green junction to compensate for the loss of Lille Bridge, maybe? I'm just speculating so please feel free to point out any howlers!
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 8, 2022 4:30:51 GMT
Recent thinking seems to be that Ealing Depot will remain unchanged, with early morning trains running empty to Turnham Green, and stabling towards the end of the day operating empty from there. S stock would continue to be driven manually to depot via Ealing Broadway. It would allow level access to be arranged to Piccadilly Line trains at Acton Town and Ealing Common. But this must await Piccadilly resignalling later in the decade, finances permitting!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Nov 8, 2022 9:37:46 GMT
Wouldn't what is currently the eastbound District Line track between Acton Town and Turnham Green be available for depot moves since it'd no-longer be in revenue service? That does seem to get all the way to the depot. Mind you, not enough layperson knowledge here to know if it'd be practical to get to/from a depot using a fairly long stretch of single track, but combined with those new points for reversing and other sidings being placed around Turnham Green junction to compensate for the loss of Lille Bridge, maybe? I'm just speculating so please feel free to point out any howlers! The depot can be accessed from the eastbound track but it's not something we do on a regular basis. In any case District line trains still need to go to Ealing Broadway first. You can't just pitch up on the eastbound at Acton Town from Turnham Green.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 8, 2022 22:03:06 GMT
Though is it really practical for the line to have four Western branches? (I suppose we could say 3 given Heathrow's only diverge for a single extra station, but still!) I think the answer is 'no' - and the reason why the Piccadilly took over two District line western branches. The southern part of the Wimbledon route would have a better service if full-time mainline trains were reintroduced. The Richmond branch would have a better service if more North London Line trains served it ... or if other services were reintroduced. At one time it was also served by the GWR, Metropolitan and its owners, the LSWR. That made five in all. I suppose what is really needed is a brand new route though central London to be extended over one of the western branches. I have something in mind, and the destination of Kingston Upon Thames. Its an idea that came from local govt. transport planners here in London. But since it would not involve SSR trains its not relevant for this thread.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Nov 8, 2022 23:04:34 GMT
The southern part of the Wimbledon route would have a better service if full-time mainline trains were reintroduced. The Richmond branch would have a better service if more North London Line trains served it Where would these Wimbledon route main line trains go and ditto these North London line trains ? Using the Wimbledon route for main line trains to anywhere is a non starter without significant infrastructure works as they would introduce too many conflicting movements - an Up train USL into Wimbledon NR can gain the Up via East Putney without conflict but at Point Pleasant then has to weave over a full ladder against both DSL and DFL Windsors. In the Down, likewise a train on the Windsor DSL can gain the E.Putney route without conflict, but at Wimbledon then has to cross the UFL and USL either east or west of the platforms. As for North London, unless you are suggesting diverting Claphams, you are adding more trains. Where to on the NLL route where these can be pathed ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Nov 9, 2022 19:28:03 GMT
The southern part of the Wimbledon route would have a better service if full-time mainline trains were reintroduced. The Richmond branch would have a better service if more North London Line trains served it Where would these Wimbledon route main line trains go and ditto these North London line trains ? Using the Wimbledon route for main line trains to anywhere is a non starter without significant infrastructure works as they would introduce too many conflicting movements - an Up train USL into Wimbledon NR can gain the Up via East Putney without conflict but at Point Pleasant then has to weave over a full ladder against both DSL and DFL Windsors. In the Down, likewise a train on the Windsor DSL can gain the E.Putney route without conflict, but at Wimbledon then has to cross the UFL and USL either east or west of the platforms. As for North London, unless you are suggesting diverting Claphams, you are adding more trains. Where to on the NLL route where these can be pathed ? Trains are routed into Waterloo via East Putney if engineering works close the normal route.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Nov 9, 2022 20:17:58 GMT
Wouldn't what is currently the eastbound District Line track between Acton Town and Turnham Green be available for depot moves since it'd no-longer be in revenue service? That does seem to get all the way to the depot. I think the good people of Chiswick might get quite vocal if they had their service withdrawn. It also overlooks the fact that there would still be short piece of shared track between 73B and 67A points, which includes through the platform area. It's also very bad practice for a depot to have single entry or exit road.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 9, 2022 20:31:25 GMT
As for North London, unless you are suggesting diverting Claphams, you are adding more trains. Where to on the NLL route where these can be pathed? Barking Riverside via Gospel Oak
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Nov 9, 2022 20:54:09 GMT
Wouldn't what is currently the eastbound District Line track between Acton Town and Turnham Green be available for depot moves since it'd no-longer be in revenue service? That does seem to get all the way to the depot. I think the good people of Chiswick might get quite vocal if they had their service withdrawn. It also overlooks the fact that there would still be short piece of shared track between 73B and 67A points, which includes through the platform area. It's also very bad practice for a depot to have single entry or exit road. Fair enough, although I'm sure I'd read somewhere that the branch switcheroo would likely involve construction of platforms on the Gunnersbury branch at Chiswick Park.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 9, 2022 22:08:17 GMT
Chiswick Park is an unresolved problem it seems. The original plan was to provide platforms on the Richmond branch linked to the current ticket hall, so maintaining connections to the east. But a major flow from Chiswick Park is for Ealing Broadway, so it was then proposed to connect the Piccadilly tracks with the local lines to enable Ealing bound services to serve the current platforms. The latest I saw, pre-Covid, was to do both, but I wonder if that would be economic in the current financial situation. Either way the SSR resignalling no longer includes these tracks, so manual driving of S stock would continue.
But the last eastbound Picc is about an hour earlier than the last westbound Districts, so direct stabling from Turnham Green to Ealing Depot after return from Richmond branch would be a possibility if the new Picc signalling allowed it.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Nov 9, 2022 22:31:11 GMT
As for North London, unless you are suggesting diverting Claphams, you are adding more trains. Where to on the NLL route where these can be pathed? Barking Riverside via Gospel Oak There's a lot of freight using part of that route (Woodgrange Park to east of Barking), plus c2c through platforms 7 & 8 at Barking as well as c2c's often used diversionary route to Liverpool Street (also via Woodgrange Park). You can only pump so much through that area! But the last eastbound Picc is about an hour earlier than the last westbound Districts, so direct stabling from Turnham Green to Ealing Depot after return from Richmond branch would be a possibility if the new Picc signalling allowed it. We don't just stable trains last thing at night. We also put some away after the morning and evening peaks. You can't run those against the flow of the Piccadilly line trains. And what about unplanned stabling due to a wheel a stop incident knocking out part of the railway? A defective train that needs to go to a depot to be fixed, etc, etc I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Nov 9, 2022 22:39:24 GMT
As for North London, unless you are suggesting diverting Claphams, you are adding more trains. Where to on the NLL route where these can be pathed? Barking Riverside via Gospel Oak There's a lot of freight using part of that route (Woodgrange Park to east of Barking), plus c2c through platforms 7 & 8 at Barking as well as c2c's often used diversionary route to Liverpool Street (also via Woodgrange Park). You can only pump so much through that area! Indeed. I think the pattern of anything that runs over NLL is as it is exactly because there are no more paths.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 9, 2022 23:43:17 GMT
But the last eastbound Picc is about an hour earlier than the last westbound Districts, so direct stabling from Turnham Green to Ealing Depot after return from Richmond branch would be a possibility if the new Picc signalling allowed it. We don't just stable trains last thing at night. We also put some away after the morning and evening peaks. You can't run those against the flow of the Piccadilly line trains. And what about unplanned stabling due to a wheel a stop incident knocking out part of the railway? A defective train that needs to go to a depot to be fixed, etc, etc I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. For current Picc Upgrade plan see here
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 10, 2022 14:15:16 GMT
Barking Riverside via Gospel Oak There's a lot of freight using part of that route (Woodgrange Park to east of Barking), plus c2c through platforms 7 & 8 at Barking as well as c2c's often used diversionary route to Liverpool Street (also via Woodgrange Park). You can only pump so much through that area! There would not be a need for more train paths on the Goblin - instead the existing terminators* at Gospel Oak could be extended to Richmond. Any changes to the signalling between Gunnersbury and Richmond would have been needed anyway - no matter who operates the trains. *Maybe two, maybe all four.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Nov 10, 2022 21:34:59 GMT
Can we stick to the topic please, we are drifting into RIPAS at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 11, 2022 3:09:34 GMT
An item in the November Underground News confirms plans for the Ealing Broadway service to split 50/50 between Richmond and Wimbledon remain. The document of 2020 suggests a start on design and legal powers in 2021 would enable this to be completed in late 2031. Presumably a start has still to be made, and so a further two-year delay might be expected. The current SSR resignalling will likely be finished in 2024 on the District Line, so perhaps accommodating the Ealing trains will require further works near a decade later.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Nov 15, 2022 11:10:42 GMT
..... But the last eastbound Picc is about an hour earlier than the last westbound Districts, so direct stabling from Turnham Green to Ealing Depot after return from Richmond branch would be a possibility if the new Picc signalling allowed it. Whether such a move was contemplated in the three SSR resignalling contracts we will probably never know, but the Picc resignalling could provide another opportunity! This idea comes from the 2015 “Piccadilly Line Track Vision document” (see Underground News January 2020) which revealed early plans for a revised Acton Town layout that would have confined the public to platforms 1 & 2 for the Piccadilly line, and closed platforms 3 & 4 for empty District Line depot workings. The westbound District track would have crossed both Piccadilly Line tracks to reach the current eastbound fast platform. It is unlikely this route could have been used, except for that last hour of the day, without disrupting Piccadilly services. Most stabling would therefore have been from Turnham Green eastbound, running wrong direction. Both roads were to be linked with twin depot access roads, one of which is currently lifted. This proposal predated the idea of stabling roads near Chiswick Park to replace Lillie Bridge sidings, and also Piccadilly Line trains serving current Chiswick Park platforms. I feel that is more likely than new platforms on the Richmond branch, since it maintains current connections of Ealing trains to the west and also to the east by cross-platform interchange at Turnham Green or Hammersmith. At Ealing Broadway two double-length sidings could be relaid next to the Central line to permit stabling of four Piccadilly trains to reduce demand for reversing at Acton Town to/from Northfields Depot. A 2019 document suggested plans for two Piccadilly Line reversing platforms at Ealing Broadway with two shunt roads for empty District Line trains reversing to depot after 22:00 hrs.
|
|
|
Post by gigabit on Dec 4, 2022 15:34:21 GMT
Is there a reason the line between Wimbledon and East Putney isn't transferred from Network Rail to LUL? The current arrangement seems to cause all manner of problems.
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Dec 4, 2022 15:40:08 GMT
Is there a reason the line between Wimbledon and East Putney isn't transferred from Network Rail to LUL? The current arrangement seems to cause all manner of problems. LU own the infrastructure and stations, Network Rail provide the traction power and signalling. The original proposal was that LU would take on command and control from NR but this has been dropped for now.
|
|
|
Post by gigabit on Dec 4, 2022 15:43:34 GMT
Any ideas why it has been dropped? When was it dropped?
I know SWR run like one train a day over the Wimbledon branch via East Putney but surely this could remain even if the signalling was transferred to LUL.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 4, 2022 16:28:50 GMT
Dropping it seemed to come around about the time when ETCS was announced for the Waterloo area.
It was a bit back now, but ISTR GN from Kings Cross (main line + suburban + Moorgate) is the first full area to go over, and pretty sure, at the time, pre covid, it was announced, that the south western lines from Waterloo is the second*** area. If not 2nd then 3rd, early anyway. Covid has certainly delayed all this, and maybe even halted it.
/perhaps/ - and I am guessing, and also fairly sure there are others in here who know more - that maybe some combination of technical or financial or political factors came into play. It just might be that projecting (if that is the right word) ETCS onto S-stock TOD (along with all of the rest necessary) is simpler than trying to overlay / underlay / integrate / whatever NR ETCS with LU CBTC for the residual main line trains that need to use the East Putney line, which, as it is /mainly/ useful for ECS more than anything else, can be any type. I am entirely speculating. It is fact the area is high for ETCS, the rest is addding 2 and 2 ......
*** it has been alleged that one reason, of several, that the SWR franchise replacing SWT, determined to eliminate the entire 455 / 707 / 458 suburban fleet to focus on all new 701 fleet is that 701s would be delivered ETCS ready compared to the vast expense of an ETCS retrofit program on 3 different EMU types (never mind 450 and 444 too) one of which is ancient. Not entering into the rest of the debate about whether 701s are actually ready for anything else !!!
EDIT - it might me GW lines from Paddington are 2nd for ETCS after GN from Kings Cross etc; anw yway, between them Waterloo and Paddington are 2 & 3 in the queue.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Dec 4, 2022 20:15:33 GMT
The original plan for the implementation of CBTC on the Wimbledon branch was to overlay it on top of the existing fixed block signalling which would have remained unaltered for SWR trains.
It's worth remembering that the Wimbledon branch signalling is now over 30 years old; this would have meant overlaying on a system that (on paper, at least) was due to be replaced within 10-15 years - potentially requiring a lot of rework when the branch was resignalled (and of course the question then would be with what).
Overlay doesn't give any advantage over fixed block signalling as it is in effect automatically driving the train between the existing fixed block signals, so it makes sense from a commercial perspective to abandon it when there is (1) no performance benefit in having it, (2) a significant cost associated with provision, and (3) potentially another significant cost in 10-15 years to reconfigure it when the existing signalling is replaced.
A similar approach has been taken in the Acton Town area - no point in overlaying there until the Piccadilly line is resignalled in about ten years time, at which point you overlay CBTC on the product that is chosen.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 4, 2022 20:21:31 GMT
The WAterloo lines ETCS is the resignalling. Several years away yet - like any NR plan - but at least there is a plan now.
It was outlined in the 2015 Route Study - post dating LU CBTC - which although did not actually say ETCS implied it QUOTE The 2015 Route Study outlined the opportunities for a digital signalling system such as European Train Control System (ETCS) to support additional Main Line services into London Waterloo. Implementing ETCS across the Wessex network, but particularly on the inner section of the SWML UNQUOTE
A more recent document states they are going for a 90 second headway and implies it is ETCS to generate a pattern of three trains every five minutes (1½ / 1½ / 2 minutes apart).
I am guessing but I'd be pretty sure all this is an input.
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196
|
Post by Tom on Dec 4, 2022 20:47:08 GMT
But does that include the LU-owned section? SWR have running powers but the signalling assets (excluding the Wimbledon and Clapham Interlockings at either end) belong to LU. The two organisations share space in some of the equipment rooms but when it comes to making an alteration purely on LU-owned kit (such as the Points and Crossings replacement the other year, where supplementary detection was added to several sets of points but there was no interlocking change) there was no need to gain approval from NR beyond a space application and signing the signalling out of/in to use in accordance with their rule book.
I'm sure it would give some in LU no end of satisfaction to have the branch fully under LU control rather than giving NR money to maintain it on LU's behalf, and no doubt some in NR would be quite glad not to spend money on something that isn't theirs.
|
|
|
Post by ijmad on Dec 6, 2022 1:02:38 GMT
I'm sure it would give some in LU no end of satisfaction to have the branch fully under LU control rather than giving NR money to maintain it on LU's behalf, and no doubt some in NR would be quite glad not to spend money on something that isn't theirs. With the greatest respect to those who work on the railways and fight for their corner of the world, as a former civil servant I have to say I find these kinds of discussion a little silly given ultimately both are statutory corporations owned by the UK state, just with different layers in between them and the Crown. It would be a trivial matter to resolve this sort of thing if there was a will to do so by the government. I suppose we can lay the blame at successive governments' feet for confusing situations like this persisting.
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Dec 6, 2022 8:53:04 GMT
I suppose we can lay the blame at successive governments' feet for confusing situations like this persisting. There was an opportunity in 1948 for the LT railways to have been included in the new Nationalised network; although I dread to think how the London scene would appear today, had it been done.
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Dec 6, 2022 23:03:21 GMT
Hmm, the only comment that I can make which would be relevant to this thread would be to ponder the northern extent of the SSR resignalling. It might have been Aylesbury, it might have been Watford.
|
|