Circles to Go

Not initially there weren't. It was expected that a high service frequency would operate, in the end, levels dropped. I would say that an extra 9 trains-perhaps 23 trains in total to run Uxbridge-Aldgate. I don't know what the peak frequencies would be like!

I don't think there would be enough trains actually, not with spares etc.

Thanks for the answer upfast.

If the Met had 10tph going to Uxbridge would there be any point in the Piccadilly going beyond Rayners Lane? The interchange is on the same platform, there is sufficient shelter, and passengers wouldn't have to wait more than 6 minutes for a connecting service.

You could always use Ruislip as a reversing point for Piccies, but then again the awkward positioning of the reversing siding may not work out with 10tph on the Met.

I'd like to think the Picc service would be better under ATO-but as you say -you never know!

But couldn't the off-peak service be increased, without needing more trains. How many spare trains does there need to be?

Budget of £0? Which real world are you talking about? We've had a bad couple of months, but the way that politics goes, things will swing back. That extra platform at Stanmore wasn't built from charitable donations, so clearly there is money available for substantial civil engineering works if they offer the right solution.

Quite true, but I just don't see any money being spent on re-modelling Rayners Lane when reversing facilities are already available.

For the sort of sums required to do whats been suggested, you'd need a damm good business case to justify it. I can imagine a sound business case for the third platform Stanmore as it benefits the whole Jubilee service - I can't see the same level of benefit at Rayners Lane and therefore re-modelling, IMHO, isn't feasible.

My solution for Rayners would be to built a new running line where the sidings are now. This would mean making the Westbound platform into an island. The cost would be tunnelling under the road to create a new train for terminating picc trains.

i100.photobucket.com/albums/m6/Adthelad/DSCN0693.jpg

The present off peak service is fine IMO

Currently there are 14 trains used on the Uxbridge service off peak.

I think Rayners is actually the subject of quite a few proposals in the organisation. The most recent I heard was a month back, and it sounded extremely daft...

The station was built with the ability to go four track, as was Ruislip. The space is not a problem, just the logistics and the money.

I still think that the lowest cost option would be to short trip one in every three Mets.

Aside from building castles in the air - what are the Picc loadings like out of Uxbridge these days? Is the Uxbridge option used to get room for the Rayners option which is used to get room for the South Harrow option which is used in preference to the Northfields/Arnos interpeak stablers to get the trains out of the central area during (EDIT: in the run up to) peak?

Or am I being too jaded after reading 75+ years of Picc. timetabling? ;D ;D [1]

*back to watching that Election footage*

[1] I won't claim the 102 years of Met. timetabling, as I've been too absorbed (of late) in the Circle/Ham & City/ELL to take much notice of the outlying services

True - but it gives a flavour of the inter-relatedness of the Circle; often complained about as a 'special case' in timetabling terms Glover et seq particularly. Rayners Lane is almost a 'text book' example of how the following feeds into the Circle:

[(end-to-end running time x 2) + layover at Rayners + layover at other end] / frequency in minutes = number of trains needed.

From a timetable regulating point of view (and I'm talking TT construction here, not service control), Rayners affects the Circle in two ways - Mets. feeding into the Baker Street/Aldgate area and the Picc. running through Hanger Lane Junction - which in turn affects the District.

You're quite right that on first glance Rayners has nothing to do with the Circle service, but if you dig deeper you'll find there is a subtle influence here. All part of the factors in designing a robust (a vile word) service.

I don't have the slightest problem with any of that

I just think that the elephant in the room is Praed St Junction to Edgware Road. I know others disagree, but I'm still not convinced that that section can carry much more traffic than it presently does.

On subject of Rayners Lane, the whole station including the platforms are grade 2 listed. It would take a lot of arm twisting to change the mind of English Heritage to allow anything to change the appearance of the station. Metronet couldn't do it. Maybe the full might of TfL/LUL can they had quite an ambitious proposal 2 years ago. There is a lot of existing infrastructure in the way. Cost of diversions would cost more than the civil engineering itself.

I find it quaint that the platforms built during new works programme on that branch are held up by bullhead rail sections complete with fish plate joints.

The former overbridge to the west was taken down late 2002.

[/li][li] how much room is there at Rayners to extend the siding and move the arrestor back the 23m to squeeze the A stock in?[/quote]

Looking at google air photos, I think that you could extend it about 15 metres or so with ease. Beyond that you'd probably need to expand the running lines outwards, for which there is space. The problem is that about 70 metres west of the current end of the siding is what appear to be abutments for an old or never built bridge. If you move the running lines you will either have to increase the angle of transition between the 16ft (6ft+4ft+6ft) and 6ft spacings, or demolish one or both of the adbutments.
Obviously the former would be cheaper, but I have no idea whether this would require any reductions in speed or anything of that nature.

The oblique air photos ("birds eye view") on maps.live.com seem to suggest that adding a third platform behind the current westbound platform would be a comparatively simple matter, using the disused sidings to the south of the station should not require the loss of any car parking. What I can't see though is how to avoid a flat crossing of the through westbound line by terminating trains, although it could be positioned either east or west of the station.

Other possible layouts, all requiring a new platform and all with disadvantages are illustrated below (not to scale):


Option 1 would probably be the simplest to build, but it involves a long walk for interchanging westbound passengers. It also necessitates at flat crossing of the westbound. If the crossing is signalled to passenger standards then tipping out probably wont be required, but if it is then this can be done without blocking the westbound line.
The existing siding would become the westbound running line, and the existing westbound line converted to a siding, a junction at the western end would enable through trains to run from either platform.

Option 2 would involve swapping the eastbound line with the siding, and involve reversing trains making a flat crossing of the eastbound. The train were to stop for a normal length of time in the existing westbound platform, allowing on-the-ball interchanging passengers to exit, and then proceed to the reversing platform via a passenger-signalled crossover then no tipping out would be required, a same platform interchange for South to West Harrow passengers would be a side effect.
Trains could run east from the reversing platform and/or the existing eastbound platform.

Option 3 removes the flat junction, but has the limited capacity of a single line terminus, although no tipping out is required. It unfortunately removes the cross-platform interchange for eastbound passengers though. This would probably be the most complicated and expensive of the three.

Option 4 is the same as option 3, but retaining the centre reversing siding (and thus tipping out). With the platforms as in option three there would need to be a flat cross over west of the station.

Option 5 is again like option 3, but with flat crossover east of the station and swapping the westbound Met and bi-di Picc Platforms. With the reversing siding, trains would tip out on the existing westbound Met, reverse in the siding and then run east from the eastbound platform as now. Trains could also or alternatively run east from the existing westbound platform without tipping out but also without cross platform interchange from the eastbound Met. The two types of reversing could perhaps be combined to reverse more trains (enhanced Piccadilly service, or reverse both Met and Picc).
[/quote]

Those look like they would cause more an operational problem (and long walks) than the existing layout.

Just extending the siding for higher speed entry, and providing extra staff for tipping out would be a much more cost effective solution.