• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Tube future notions

Status
Not open for further replies.

TommyL4

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2018
Messages
21
There is already an equal split of Upminster-Wimbledon services and Upminster-(via Barons Court) services.
My original thinking is something like changing from 12 EB/Richmond-Upminster + 6 Wimbleware + 6 Wimbledon-Upminster/Barking/Tower Hill to 9 EB/Richmond-Upminster + 3 EB/Richmond-Edgware Road + 3 Wimbleware + 9 Wimbledon-Upminster/Barking/Tower Hill, so not as complex an operation as threads 28 and 29 suggest, since one of the problems is Wimbledon having 50% of their trains not going to the City while EB and Richmond have no Edgware Road terminators, which seems to be unbalanced.
Though I'm not sure whether this could possibly fit into a timetable.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,266
^^^ There’s little or no point in including X Number of Ealing Broadway services if TfL have already said they’re going to be replaced by extra Piccadilly services...
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
2,741
Location
West London
^^^ There’s little or no point in including X Number of Ealing Broadway services if TfL have already said they’re going to be replaced by extra Piccadilly services...
That will be sometime off now, with the new Piccadilly trains some way off and the replacement signalling on hold.
 

BartTheAnorak

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2012
Messages
20
How will changing the colour on the map relieve congestion?

I didn't say changing colours would relieve congestion. I suggested that making Wimbleware a separate line might do so - the line name and colour I 'proposed' were just my additional ideas.

I have been however proved wrong.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,266
That will be sometime off now, with the new Piccadilly trains some way off and the replacement signalling on hold.
Fair point but I think it would be unusual to significantly change the proposed “SSR Resignalling end state” service patterns so soon after they were introduced. I’d have assumed it was better to give the expected 32 tph SSR time to settle down first.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
The station rebuild is required before the Northern line can be split as Camden Town can't cope with the predicted additional number of people changing platforms/branch.

The issue now is that TfL are broke and don't have the money to do the Camden rebuild. I'm pretty sure Camden Council have approved the scheme, there is a vacant school site which will be used for the new entrance
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
776
Location
Somewhere
Reopening the Outer Circle line branch via Kensington (Olympia), Shepherd's Bush and Latimer Road?
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Reopening the Outer Circle line branch via Kensington (Olympia), Shepherd's Bush and Latimer Road?

Pretty unattractive route for commuters going in to town, as it meanders North West before turning East. Possibly Shepherds Bush would provide an attractive connection to the Central Line. Still more stops to go East on the Central though (from West Brompton: Kensington Olympia, Shepherds Bush, change, Holland Park, Notting Hill Gate vs Earls Court, High Street Ken, change, Notting Hill Gate).

Also: where would these extra services be turned? Edgware Road has no extra capacity and the top of the Circle will already be at 32tph by 2025.
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
776
Location
Somewhere
Also: where would these extra services be turned? Edgware Road has no extra capacity and the top of the Circle will already be at 32tph by 2025.
I probably think both branches should be in one direction during certain times (e.g. on M-F morning peak, Inner Circle goes north and Outer southbound and vice versa during afternoon/evening peak or similar patterns during other times). They should continue to operate on the same route (Hammersmith-Edgware Road via Aldgate)
 
Last edited:

BritishGuy54

Member
Joined
22 Feb 2019
Messages
19
Here are some ideas for extensions.

DLR to Romford
Gallions Reach (DLR to Beckton)
Beckton Riverside
Creekmouth
Barking Riverside (Overground)
Goresbrook
Dagenham Dock (c2c)
Dagenham Heathway (District (Street Level Interchange))
Becontree Heath
Rush Green
Romford (Overground/Crossrail/Greater Anglia)

Trains will mainly run from Canning Town/Custom House
Bay Platforms at:
Canning Town
Custom House
Dagenham Dock
Romford

Mainly Built in Tunnels

Bakerloo Line Extension
Phase 1:
Elephant & Castle
Camberwell
Peckham Rye (Overground,etc.)
Nunhead
New Cross Gate (Overground,Southern)
Lewisham (DLR, Southeastern)

Phase 2:
Lewisham
Ladywell
Catford Bridge (For Catford)
Lower Sydenham
New Beckenham
Kent House (For Beckenham Road)
Elmers End (Trams)
Eden Park
West Wickham
Hayes

Phase 3:
Lewisham
Blackheath
Charlton
Woolwich Dockyard
Woolwich Arsenal (DLR, Southeastern (For Woolwich: Crossrail))
Thamesmead
Barking Riverside (Overground)
Dagenham Dock (c2c)
Beam Park (c2c)

Built in Tunnels

Overground (Romford-Upminster) Extension:
Upminster
Emerson Park
Romford
Collier Row
Marks Gate
Hainault Forest
Hainault

Double Tracking Needed

Overground (Gospel Oak-Barking)
Barking
Barking Riverside
Thamesmead
Abbey Wood
 

LU_timetabler

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2017
Messages
165
The frequency to Battersea would be too high, and to Morden too low
No, half the Battersea trains would reverse at Kennington. Other than running to/from depot or diversions due to service problems no Charing Cross trains run to Morden anyway. There is already a plan after Canning Town and Bank rebuilds are done to split the Northern, but it really requires extra rolling stock, so until the current rolling stock is replaced the splitting of the Northern Line is unlikely. Not sure which way round the split is proposed, as to whether that matches the suggestion given here.
 

LU_timetabler

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2017
Messages
165
Split Northern Line (Camden council permitting) - Morden-Edgware as the Bank Line (retaining Northern black) and Battersea-High Barnet/MHE as the Charing Line (dark grey).

Wimbledon/Kensington Olympia-Edgware Road devolve as the Earls Line (olive green) - thus less congestion in the Circle/District section.

Piccadilly and District Lines swap north-western termini with Piccadilly going to Ealing Broadway and fast District line trains (using current Piccadilly stops plus possibly Turnham Green) taking over the Uxbridge route. I mean let's face it, anyone wanting to travel even from Cockfosters to Rayners Lane has a quicker job of it changing at KXSP for the Metropolitan than staying on the Piccadilly.

What does everybody reckon?
District/Picc - Current proposal is for Picc to keep Uxbridge but to add Ealing Broadway. Picc with new trains and re-signalling and service uplift will required an extra terminating point. District will have increased service to Richmond and Wimbledon. They will not swap fast and slow lines because a) infrastructure at point where Picc emerges from tunnel, b) Picc needs the fast tracks to get to Heathrow quickly. No point separating off the Wimbledon branch, it is jointly served by trains from both Edgware Road and Tower Hill and beyond and the Edgware Road section alone cannot provide the number of trains required on the Wimbledon branch.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
District/Picc - Current proposal is for Picc to keep Uxbridge but to add Ealing Broadway. Picc with new trains and re-signalling and service uplift will required an extra terminating point. District will have increased service to Richmond and Wimbledon. They will not swap fast and slow lines because a) infrastructure at point where Picc emerges from tunnel, b) Picc needs the fast tracks to get to Heathrow quickly. No point separating off the Wimbledon branch, it is jointly served by trains from both Edgware Road and Tower Hill and beyond and the Edgware Road section alone cannot provide the number of trains required on the Wimbledon branch.

I largely agree with you, however, I'd suggest that the speed of the Piccadilly to Heathrow will be a lot less significant after the Elizabeth Line opens. I think the majority of people wanting to go to the airport from Central London will use this instead. The Piccadilly Line will continue to be useful for people who live in West London and want to travel or work at the airport, but the express section between Hammersmith and Acton Town will be much less of a necessity.

If the Piccadilly Line does indeed take over the Ealing Broadway branch, it will be slower anyway since trains will need to stop at Turnham Green (for interchange) and Chiswick Park (because there will be no trains here at all if the District goes).
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
If the Piccadilly Line does indeed take over the Ealing Broadway branch, it will be slower anyway since trains will need to stop at Turnham Green (for interchange) and Chiswick Park (because there will be no trains here at all if the District goes).
I'm sure I read somewhere that there are plans to move Chiswick Park onto the Richmond Branch instead.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
I'm sure I read somewhere that there are plans to move Chiswick Park onto the Richmond Branch instead.

I've heard that too, but seems like it would be considerably more expensive than just switching the Piccadilly Line to the outer tracks after Turnham Green junction. A blocker would be maintaining a way for the District Line to access Ealing Common Depot. Perhaps there's a way to tweak Chiswick Park just enough to give two through lines with platforms and single bidirectional line to the depot? Guess we'll see what TfL decide to do if they ever do it.
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
776
Location
Somewhere
I'm sure I read somewhere that there are plans to move Chiswick Park onto the Richmond Branch instead.
Yes, on a map building a new Chiswick Park on the Richmond branch seems viable but the middle Picadilly line tracks in the current station should be torn up so trains could stop there. Also there'd be an out-of-station interchange if passengers would change from either the District or the Piccadilly.
 

bluegoblin7

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2011
Messages
1,356
Location
JB/JP/JW
Yes, on a map building a new Chiswick Park on the Richmond branch seems viable but the middle Picadilly line tracks in the current station should be torn up so trains could stop there. Also there'd be an out-of-station interchange if passengers would change from either the District or the Piccadilly.

How does ‘tearing up the middle tracks’ firstly allow the Piccadilly line to stop at the existing Chiswick Park and secondly allow District line trains access to one of their primary depots, Ealing Common?

Additionally, why faff around creating a new Chiswick Park and major work to the existing one when there’s already same-direction cross-platform interchange one stop along at Turnham Green?

Let’s put the crayons away folks.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Let’s put the crayons away folks.

There is a legitimate issue though. Chiswick Park has platforms on the outer tracks only. If District Line services are withdrawn, it has no service at all.

So there basically five options for what you could do:
  1. Close it. There are other stations like Gunnersbury nearby who would have uplifted capacity. Locals would not be happy.
  2. Switch some or all Piccadilly Line trains to the outer tracks. This is problematic though, as the two lines likely will end up with incompatible signalling and S stock would need to run over tracks signalled with the Piccadilly Line's system to get to the depot.
  3. Build new platforms on the District Line to Richmond. I know the area very well and I think there is space for this, if you use Sainsburys car park.
  4. Reconfigure existing platforms so they're on the Piccadilly Line. Would seem difficult given how the station is built. There might just be space for an island platform if one track is torn up, leaving two tracks for Piccadilly Line services and a single (bidirectional) line to the North for the District Line to get to its depot.
  5. Move the depot. Hugely expensive.
They'll have to do one of these. Given money is tight, I suspect they'll pick one of the cheaper options, but closing Chiswick Park is probably off the cards.
 
Last edited:

bluegoblin7

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2011
Messages
1,356
Location
JB/JP/JW
As has already been highlighted in this thread, new platforms on the Richmond branch is the preferred and indeed most likely option.

Every other option will be significantly more expensive, or carry significant operational risk/inflexibility.
 

MatthewRead

On Moderation
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Messages
1,636
Location
West london
How does ‘tearing up the middle tracks’ firstly allow the Piccadilly line to stop at the existing Chiswick Park and secondly allow District line trains access to one of their primary depots, Ealing Common?

Additionally, why faff around creating a new Chiswick Park and major work to the existing one when there’s already same-direction cross-platform interchange one stop along at Turnham Green?

Let’s put the crayons away folks.
I've said before they could try narrow island platforms such as the ones at Barons Court.
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
As has already been highlighted in this thread, new platforms on the Richmond branch is the preferred and indeed most likely option.

Every other option will be significantly more expensive, or carry significant operational risk/inflexibility.

Fair enough. I have a short memory for thread history, evidently :E
 

bennunn

Member
Joined
4 Jan 2013
Messages
22
As has already been highlighted in this thread, new platforms on the Richmond branch is the preferred and indeed most likely option.

Every other option will be significantly more expensive, or carry significant operational risk/inflexibility.

If they're going to bother building something new, why not close Gunnersbury as well and build a single station between the two, on the NLL junction?
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
If they're going to bother building something new, why not close Gunnersbury as well and build a single station between the two, on the NLL junction?

Gunnersbury triangle is a well-loved nature reserve, any encroachment on it for a new station is unlikely to be welcomed by the locals or Hounslow council.
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
776
Location
Somewhere
If they're going to bother building something new, why not close Gunnersbury as well and build a single station between the two, on the NLL junction?
Are you crazy? People use that station to change between the London Overground and District and as far as I know, it's been used a lot. So now closing both Chiswick Park and Gunnersbury would be more ludicrous!
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
My concept for a triangular interchange at Chiswick Park to provide connections between Piccadilly, District and LO lines and replace Gunnersbury. Platform end entrances at 'corners' shown in yellow. Chiswick High Road entrance through buildings on opposite side of road to existing Gunnersbury entrance, under 200m away. Out of station interchange between Picc and LO via new path to office development. Very little incursion into nature reserve area. All Piccadilly trains to stop here instead of proposal for Turnham Green calls, so office park gets direct Heathrow service. Assumes all Districts to Wimbledon/Richmond and Piccadilly to Ealing Broadway.
chiswickpark.jpg
 

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,810
Location
UK
Not sure you're correct there. Your illustration colours only the trackbeds — platforms would require far more space.

Indeed. I have a good friend who lives on Bollo Lane and the local residents were extremely upset about the flats built there (which were on a brownfield site formerly occupied by a car knackers yard). Chiswick would never stand for the above plan.

Also @MarkyT, do you realise the proposed walk distances platform to platform shown on your proposal are over 500 metres? It's bigger than it looks. Compare the existing length of Chiswick Park's platforms. Plus you'd need at least six lifts to get people across the bridges and down to the three ticket halls. I love the ambition but we're talking about replacing two stations that even if combined together are less busy than Hyde Park Corner.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Not sure you're correct there. Your illustration colours only the trackbeds — platforms would require far more space.
The boxes shown are about 17m wide compared to South Acton which I measure to be about 12m fence to fence. As to length they're both 200m which is over the top I know for both District and LO stock (S. Acton is about 120m).
Indeed. I have a good friend who lives on Bollo Lane and the local residents were extremely upset about the flats built there (which were on a brownfield site formerly occupied by a car knackers yard). Chiswick would never stand for the above plan.
Also @MarkyT, do you realise the proposed walk distances platform to platform shown on your proposal are over 500 metres? It's bigger than it looks. Compare the existing length of Chiswick Park's platforms. Plus you'd need at least six lifts to get people across the bridges and down to the three ticket halls. I love the ambition but we're talking about replacing two stations that even if combined together are less busy than Hyde Park Corner.
It's a fair way from Piccadilly to LO I know, following the new route just put in for the office park access leading to the new bridge so would be safe. Agreed the plan would be expensive with all the additional bridges, lifts etc. Also the LO platforms are very close to existing South Acton station, only about 500m. It would be useful to get some kind of LO interchange with Piccadilly, although I reluctantly agree the scheme shown is probably unrealistic. Another idea is as follows:
chiswickpark2.jpg
This moves Chiswick Park Piccadilly station about 450m west and places new LO platforms to replace South Acton directly beneath at the intersection bridge. The underbridges look wide enough to take side platfroms alongside the double track and there's also possibility for platforms on the LO line towards Hounslow if that ever happens. South Acton would close in this case. Haven't thought much about Entrances and access routes.
 

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
776
Location
Somewhere
Right, insane idea:
My proposal for an alternative Bakerloo line extension:
Elephant & Castle (existing; a new terminating platform to be built to ease congestion south of the line)
Walworth Road/Camberwell Gate (located at the original disused station which Thameslink runs through. If possible, the old station could be reopened for an interchange)
Elmington (new intermediate station; located to the west of the Elmington Estate)
Denmark Hill (interchange with the London Overground)
East Dulwich (interchange with Southeastern Trains)
Barry Road (new intermediate station; located to the southeast of East Dulwich town)
Honor Oak Park (interchange with the London Overground)
Blythe Hill (new intermediate station; located at Blythe Hill Park)
Catford (merging two Southeastern stations - Catford and Catford Bridge - linked with corridors)
Hither Green (interchange with Southeastern Trains)
I also have a few more plans up me sleeve, if anyone's interested.
 

simple simon

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
651
Location
Suburban London
District/Picc - Current proposal is for Picc to keep Uxbridge but to add Ealing Broadway. Picc with new trains and re-signalling and service uplift will required an extra terminating point. District will have increased service to Richmond and Wimbledon. They will not swap fast and slow lines because a) infrastructure at point where Picc emerges from tunnel, b) Picc needs the fast tracks to get to Heathrow quickly. No point separating off the Wimbledon branch, it is jointly served by trains from both Edgware Road and Tower Hill and beyond and the Edgware Road section alone cannot provide the number of trains required on the Wimbledon branch.

Why is a third branch needed in the west when the other end of the line has just the one route?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top