|
|
Post by thc on May 17, 2006 17:18:09 GMT
Out walking the Hillingdon Trail footpath t'other day I passed very close to Ruislip Depot and crossed Austin's Lane bridge at Ickenham and something struck me (though fortunately not stray 'A' stock!) that I know would interest one or two on here. What actually hit me was the considerable potential for interchange between the corridors that cross at this point. By diverting West Ruislip services over an expanded chord onto the Uxbridge branch at a flat junction somewhere east of the Austin's Lane bridge and Ickenham station, a much larger slice of west London would be accessible to the Central Line. Chiltern could continue to serve West Ruislip as now (in fact with four-tracking between the Ruislips which I believe is a part of their future plans they could enhance this) but focus on South Ruislip as an interchange station with the Central. All of which I'm sure could be done relatively cheaply (stress on the "relatively"  ). "What about the existing Piccadilly services to Uxbridge?" I hear you ask. Turn them round at Ruislip, I say. Such a revised schedule might even free up a train for use on other Picc services. And, with the current headway to West Ruislip on the Central, it shouldn't prove too problematic integrating Met and Central services. Should it? I Googled "Central Line to Uxbridge" and it seems that quite a few other people (MPs mostly) have had the same idea. So does this have legs or is it merely pie-in-the-sky? Grateful for your thoughts, people...  THC |
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on May 17, 2006 17:47:39 GMT
I don't really see the point, especcially with the planned Park Royal Central/Picc station.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2006 17:47:46 GMT
There has been an idea floating around for a while to build Central Line platforms near where the lines cross, to connect with the Piccadilly line station at Park Royal. Unfortunately it seems HMRI will not give permission for the Piccadilly platforms to be moved closer, as the line slopes at this point and new sloping platforms are not allowed.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2006 17:52:34 GMT
"What about the existing Piccadilly services to Uxbridge?" I hear you ask. Turn them round at Ruislip, I say. Such a revised schedule might even free up a train for use on other Picc services. And, with the current headway to West Ruislip on the Central, it shouldn't prove too problematic integrating Met and Central services. Should it? Your plan would free up a 73TS or two, but would require extra 92TS. Unfortunately, the Central Line service is already restricted by the lack of 92TS, so extending the Central would be a bad idea. Just keep it the way it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2006 17:54:08 GMT
And Park Royal to Hanger Lane is within walking distance....
|
|
|
|
Post by thc on May 17, 2006 18:03:23 GMT
Your plan would free up a 73TS or two, but would require extra 92TS. Unfortunately, the Central Line service is already restricted by the lack of 92TS, so extending the Central would be a bad idea. Just keep it the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there a bunch of 1992 stock clones currently being modified by Bombardier somewhere? So maybe the problem can be solved relatively easily? (again, stress on the "relatively"...) (Which leaves the question of what stock for the W&C - maybe an add-on for 2009 stock or even some recon 1967/72 stock? Just a thought...) THC |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2006 18:41:30 GMT
Your plan would free up a 73TS or two, but would require extra 92TS. Unfortunately, the Central Line service is already restricted by the lack of 92TS, so extending the Central would be a bad idea. Just keep it the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there a bunch of 1992 stock clones currently being modified by Bombardier somewhere? So maybe the problem can be solved relatively easily? (again, stress on the "relatively"...) (Which leaves the question of what stock for the W&C - maybe an add-on for 2009 stock or even some recon 1967/72 stock? Just a thought...) THC That was an idea being booted about, yes. To have the 92ts clones sent to expand their brothers fleet, and send the 72ts Mk1 stock down the drain. but I don't think that would have gone down well with the regular users! |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on May 17, 2006 21:19:46 GMT
What I never understood is why they don't use an easy enought solution to the gradient problem...remove it during the station.
I.e. from the side profile (and for great want of a less severe ascii gradient...)
\
..\
....\
...becomes...
\
..----
........\
It requires either the gradients be stretched out over a longer distance or are made sharper. The first doesn't strike me as being too great a problem for the amounts involved, and having a compact station footprint seems like an important enough justification to warrant the work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2006 23:35:21 GMT
What I never understood is why they don't use an easy enought solution to the gradient problem...remove it during the station. I dare say it could be done, but it adds to the expense. |
|
|
|
Post by whoosh on May 18, 2006 0:12:33 GMT
That was an idea being booted about, yes. To have the 92ts clones sent to expand their brothers fleet, and send the 72ts Mk1 stock down the drain. but I don't think that would have gone down well with the regular users! It wouldn't be that bad would it? It's only a quick one stop 4 minute journey, you make it sound as though it would be a long uncomfortable journey on a rickety old train. Most people (passengers) just think a tube train is a tube train. I don't think they'd notice the difference - and if they did, I don't think they'd care. More likely to care are the drivers, maintainance and operations people. Or is that perhaps who you meant when you said "regular users"? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mandgc on May 18, 2006 0:38:15 GMT
Park Royal Interchange.
How about a Travolator betwen the two stations ?
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on May 19, 2006 16:09:06 GMT
Ahh, the Central to Uxbridge! Its a fantastic idea, but someone did make the point to me that the signalling on the central would be incompatable with the uxbridge branch.
However, I dont think that signalling compatability should determine whether an extension is feasible or not. 15 years ago it would have been possible...
As for withdrawing the pic between Ruislip and Ickenham, that would be a no-no, because of the volume of school traffic between those two points.
Uxbridge is a far bigger source of traffic then West Ruislip is, so a diversion would (eventually) pay for itself. It would also reduce overcrowding on the U1 bus, and reduce the number of people walking along Ickenham High Road to get into Ickenham from West Ruislip Station. I sincerely hope it does eventually go ahead, and TfL doesnt miss another oppertunity to benefit local passengers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2006 17:47:32 GMT
You mention this, I did have a dream a while ago about visiting Uxbridge with a 92ts!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2006 19:34:05 GMT
That was an idea being booted about, yes. To have the 92ts clones sent to expand their brothers fleet, and send the 72ts Mk1 stock down the drain. but I don't think that would have gone down well with the regular users! It wouldn't be that bad would it? It's only a quick one stop 4 minute journey, you make it sound as though it would be a long uncomfortable journey on a rickety old train. Most people (passengers) just think a tube train is a tube train. I don't think they'd notice the difference - and if they did, I don't think they'd care. More likely to care are the drivers, maintainance and operations people. Or is that perhaps who you meant when you said "regular users"? ;D Actually more likely to care are the people in the city (might have been the Corporation of London ?) who actually paid for part of the cost of the replacement 92TS. They would be very unhappy to see them replaced with 72TS! This issue is mentioned on other threads as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on May 19, 2006 20:10:39 GMT
The only route to be built [and thats in doubt] going to Uxbridge is the west london tram, which will travel via Hayes. |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on May 20, 2006 12:57:38 GMT
Something else which ocurred to me was the platform heights. I've never been down in that area, so have never used the line, but are the platforms mainline-height from the district heritage, or tube-height as the picc has had the branch so long?
The rumour mill suggests the district may get the uxbridge branch back, so it would seem that all the work involved for a central service would be pointless.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on May 21, 2006 21:51:19 GMT
Rayners - Uxb are compromise height for tube/sub-surface
The platforms being already at compromise height surely would mean that either a tube or a subsurface line could be routed over them without irritating HSE or whomever?
|
|
|
|
Post by ribaric on Jun 15, 2006 14:32:49 GMT
The Park Royal interchange was developed beyond "concept" and the drawings sit in Sys Upgrades dept even now. The problem is about money. The gradient is a problem but not insurmoutable, the developer of the old Guiness site has to pay for the new station and interchange - IF! the development grows bigger than a magnitude of (I've forgotten how big). The CBA has shown that this bird won't fly financially so the development is stunted and the new CL station remains a pile of drawings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2006 14:37:43 GMT
Something else which ocurred to me was the platform heights. I've never been down in that area, so have never used the line, but are the platforms mainline-height from the district heritage, or tube-height as the picc has had the branch so long? They are half way between the two, or there abouts |
|
).
