Piccadilly Line Uxbridge branch - future improvements?

90sWereBetter · 18 Apr 2024

I was wondering if there were any plans to improve the service on this branch of the Piccadilly, what with the 2024 Stock arriving soon and the potential resignalling of the line. At present there's 6tph off-peak between Acton Town and Rayners Lane, of which 3tph continue to Uxbridge. While an excellent service by any other city's metrics, this is relatively low frequency by tube standards. It seems adequate for the meantime (and the Metropolitan takes most of the strain past Rayners Lane anyway), but there are huge new developments going up around Alperton and the south of Wembley which will certainly add to passenger numbers.

The branch has always been a hostage to fate in a way, given that Hounslow and Heathrow require an intensive service.

RailUK Forums

xtmw · 18 Apr 2024

I believe there's 11 trains in the peak between Acton Town and Rayners Lane ? Regardless there should be plans to increase the off peak tph to 9, however the document I have before me is from early 2020 before the virus hit so this most likely changed

90sWereBetter · 18 Apr 2024

Ah, I wasn't aware there was a increased peak service on this branch.

MaidaVale · 18 Apr 2024

As mentioned above, Service is increased quite drastically during the peaks.

Regarding future plans, I don't believe there are any plans to increase frequency on the Rayners branch specifically, but I imagine as our frequency is due to increase post-introduction of the new stock anyway, some of these will inevitably be up the branch.

Central · 18 Apr 2024

Isn’t it planned for the Picc to take over the Ealing Bdwy service from District and the District to take over the Uxbridge branch at least as far as Rayner’s Lane?

rebmcr · 18 Apr 2024

Central said:
Isn’t it planned for the Picc to take over the Ealing Bdwy service from District and the District to take over the Uxbridge branch at least as far as Rayner’s Lane?

There was such an idea, but even pre-pandemic it was more of a vague aspiration than a concrete plan with confirmed timeframes, so who knows whether it's even still active.

MaidaVale · 18 Apr 2024

Central said:
Isn’t it planned for the Picc to take over the Ealing Bdwy service from District and the District to take over the Uxbridge branch at least as far as Rayner’s Lane?

There have been talks and/or rumors of a switch for years, and whilst it may be physically possible it doesn't necessarily take into account the immense amount of operational changes this would require to actually swap over.

Signal sighting angles, South Harrow sidings would need a complete rework (additional to the recent one it's already had) to be able to accommodate S7s (and likely S8s), The signalling between Acton Town and South Harrow is controlled by the Piccadilly signallers so that would need to be swapped over (although we already do Ealing Broadway), the list goes on...

Whereas I don't think it can be fully ruled out, there are certainly no firm plans (or any official proposals whatsoever) currently in place. I suppose it might eventually come down to how 4LM progresses on the Uxbridge branch.

Dstock7080 · 19 Apr 2024

Central said:
Isn’t it planned for the Picc to take over the Ealing Bdwy service from District and the District to take over the Uxbridge branch at least as far as Rayner’s Lane?

It isn’t planned, as 4LM will provide fixed signals for Piccadilly trains between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge with CBTC provided for MET trains.

DynamicSpirit · 29 Apr 2024

Central said:
Isn’t it planned for the Picc to take over the Ealing Bdwy service from District and the District to take over the Uxbridge branch at least as far as Rayner’s Lane?

Out of interest, what would be the purpose of doing that? How would it benefit passengers? (And does the District line have enough stock to cover what would amount to a long extension)?

edwin_m · 29 Apr 2024

DynamicSpirit said:
Out of interest, what would be the purpose of doing that? How would it benefit passengers? (And does the District line have enough stock to cover what would amount to a long extension)?

One benefit would be that Rayners Lane to Uxbridge would be served only by sub-surface stock, which would allow platforms to be adjusted for level boarding.

ThameslinkUser · 29 Apr 2024

DynamicSpirit said:
Out of interest, what would be the purpose of doing that? How would it benefit passengers?

A shorter journey to a reversing point that can handle a high number of trains will result in a higher throughput in the busier core.

DynamicSpirit · 29 Apr 2024

ThameslinkUser said:
A shorter journey to a reversing point that can handle a high number of trains will result in a higher throughput in the busier core.

That's referring to the Piccadilly line if it went to Ealing Broadway, right? But the reverse would happen with the District line.

Enthusiast · 29 Apr 2024

Central said:
Isn’t it planned for the Picc to take over the Ealing Bdwy service from District and the District to take over the Uxbridge branch at least as far as Rayner’s Lane?

I read about that plan some time ago (as mentioned, I believe it was pre-pandemic).

I thought the sticking point (or perhaps most expensive aspect) of that plan was Chiswick Park. Being served only by District Line trains to Ealing I thought part of the plan was to re-site the station slightly south so that it could be served by the Richmond branch of the District (the Richmond branch is only a very short distance south of the "main" line at that point, though at a lower level, passing under Acton Lane).

ThameslinkUser · 29 Apr 2024

DynamicSpirit said:
But the reverse would happen with the District line.

The current suggestion is the Piccadilly to continue running the Uxbridge branch, and all EBY District services to be diverted to Richmond and Wimbledon to increase capacity there, with the additional Piccadilly line trains being sent to EBY for the improved core throughput. This particular idea would have neglible impact for everybody on all railways aside from the customers that use Chiswick Park. Of course, all of these suggestions from all sides of the aisle are just that: suggestions. Nothing is concrete. Feel to free to do a FOI to TfL to gain an improved understanding of any preliminary undertakings.

Central · 29 Apr 2024

Remember the good old days when Uxbridge on the Picc was peaks only Mon-Fri.

bramling · 29 Apr 2024

Central said:
Remember the good old days when Uxbridge on the Picc was peaks only Mon-Fri.

Worth also remembering that the main reason Piccadilly trains serve Uxbridge off-peak is because turning the whole service at Rayners Lane was found to be too much of a performance risk.

IIRC this was part of a timetable enhancement that came around the late 90s and brought a number of improvements to the off-peak service, with the line running a virtually all-day peak service. Suffice to say things have been cut back somewhat since then as that intensity of service wasn’t really able to be reliably delivered, though rather sadly despite various timetables trimming back elements of the service the line still isn’t particularly reliable.

Enthusiast · 29 Apr 2024

Central said:
Remember the good old days when Uxbridge on the Picc was peaks only Mon-Fri.

I do. What I also remember, in the early days of my Enthusiasm for London Underground, is not knowing that the Bakerloo only went to Watford Junction in the peaks (and then only about 4 trains each way, I think). I spent over an hour at Piccadilly Circus - at the north end of the northbound platform where the crossover is - waiting in vain to see a train heading for Watford Junction. However, I digress!

tom1649 · 1 May 2024

Are there still any booked Ruislip terminators?

Dstock7080 · 1 May 2024

None scheduled

Dent · Thursday at 09:21

Enthusiast said:
I read about that plan some time ago (as mentioned, I believe it was pre-pandemic).

I thought the sticking point (or perhaps most expensive aspect) of that plan was Chiswick Park. Being served only by District Line trains to Ealing I thought part of the plan was to re-site the station slightly south so that it could be served by the Richmond branch of the District (the Richmond branch is only a very short distance south of the "main" line at that point, though at a lower level, passing under Acton Lane).

How would swapping the Uxbridge and Ealing Broadway service require re-siting Chiswick Park? The current station would still be served by the same District Line tracks it is now, the only change would be that that destination of the Westbound trains stopping there would be Rayners Lane or Uxbridge rather than Ealing Broadway.

ThameslinkUser said:
A shorter journey to a reversing point that can handle a high number of trains will result in a higher throughput in the busier core.

How would changing the length of one of the branches lead to an increased throughout in the core?

ThameslinkUser · Thursday at 09:45

Dent said:
How would changing the length of one of the branches lead to an increased throughout in the core?

Shorter journey times mean fewer trains needed to boost the core. It is the reason why you have booked Northfields - Arnos Grove reversers. Acton - Ealing Broadway is about 15 minutes for a round trip with a quick turnaround. Acton - Uxbridge is about 70 minutes for a round trip. If a given train is doing Ealing Broadway instead of Uxbridge, it will be back in Central London before the other train has even turned around at Uxbridge. If every train you would've sent to Uxbridge reverses at Ealing Broadway, then that's a lot more trains heading back into Central London compared with travelling up and down the Uxbridge branch, thus boosting the throughput in the Core.

Dent said:
How would swapping the Uxbridge and Ealing Broadway service require re-siting Chiswick Park? The current station would still be served by the same District Line tracks it is now, the only change would be that that destination of the Westbound trains stopping there would be Rayners Lane or Uxbridge rather than Ealing Broadway.

Chiswick Park has no platforms for the fast lines which the Piccadilly line use. If District is to only serve the Richmond branch, then there will be no trains able to stop at Chiswick Park unless the station is resited onto the Richmond branch.

jankeesverschu · Thursday at 10:20

MaidaVale said:
As mentioned above, Service is increased quite drastically during the peaks.

Regarding future plans, I don't believe there are any plans to increase frequency on the Rayners branch specifically, but I imagine as our frequency is due to increase post-introduction of the new stock anyway, some of these will inevitably be up the branch.

Is there any possibility in upgrading the Acton-Earls Court section to improve capacity?

DynamicSpirit · Thursday at 12:13

jankeesverschu said:
Is there any possibility in upgrading the Acton-Earls Court section to improve capacity?

Are there any capacity problems with that section that need fixing?

Dent · Thursday at 12:50

ThameslinkUser said:
Chiswick Park has no platforms for the fast lines which the Piccadilly line use. If District is to only serve the Richmond branch, then there will be no trains able to stop at Chiswick Park unless the station is resited onto the Richmond branch.

The proposal being discussed was not the District Line only service the Richmond Branch, it was swapping the destinations of the District and Piccadilly lines beyond Ealing Common, which would make no difference to the fact that the District Line serves Chiswick Park.

The District Line only service the Richmond Branch would be a different proposal, and would cause bigger issues that Chiswick Park given that it would also leave the entire Wimbledon Branch and with no service.

notverydeep · Thursday at 12:51

Dent said:
How would changing the length of one of the branches lead to an increased throughout in the core?

A shorter branch requires fewer trains to serve than a longer one for any given frequency, thus a higher core service can be offered for a smaller overall fleet size (and thus capital cost of fleet / maintenance facilities) and a lower operating cost (fewer Train Operators, less maintenance and power).

Dent · Thursday at 13:02

notverydeep said:
A shorter branch requires fewer trains to serve than a longer one for any given frequency, thus a higher core service can be offered for a smaller overall fleet size (and thus capital cost of fleet / maintenance facilities) and a lower operating cost (fewer Train Operators, less maintenance and power).

That would be true if the fleet size was the fixed limiting factor, but the the fleet size is not fixed given that the a new fleet is in production the can be whatever size is needed to maintain optimum frequency given the current length of the line.

notverydeep · Thursday at 13:46

Dent said:
That would be true if the fleet size was the fixed limiting factor, but the the fleet size is not fixed given that the a new fleet is in production the can be whatever size is needed to maintain optimum frequency given the current length of the line.

Yes, this is also true, but the ability to fund the additional trains and additional facilities might also be a limiting factor.

The trade off is between additional District line services to Richmond and Wimbledon (the present and proposed additional District line Ealing Broadway services being diverted to those) or further additional Piccadilly services towards Heathrow, Rayners Lane or Uxbridge instead of Ealing Broadway, but with the present distribution of service between the District western branches (albeit increased to the Subsurface Upgrade end state of 32 tph in Central London).

BrianW · Thursday at 15:54

If only it were that easy ...

Even sixty years ago, it was necessary to step down to the platform from the District Line train to the platform, and down again to the smaller and lower Piccadilly Line train across the platform at Acton Town, Hammersmith or Barons Court. When travelling with my uncle from Ealing Broadway to Fulham Broadway to watch his favourite Chelsea FC, we often changed trains to the Piccadilly at Acton Town, if a train was in or coming in, and back to the District at Hammersmith with the joy of the faster Piccadilly train overtaking a District train or two ... such fun, and frustration if the doors closed too soon, or late!!

IF the District were to run from Upminster to Uxbridge, that would be a longer trip and need more of the larger-sized District stock.

Much the same considerations apply between Metropolitan and Piccadilly between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge, and between Wembley Park and Finchley Road, Met and Jubilee.

I could see virtue in this kind of 'crayoning' if there were to be same sized stock more widely across the 'network'.

There were 'back in the day' District Line trains, as well as Piccadilly Line, between Acton Town and Hounslow West, as Old Tube maps show; ans also, of course District trains from Ealing Broadway to Southend!

I don't see 'spare' stock (and crew) standing idle in sidings ready to leap into extra service frequencies- maybe I'm wrong there.

DynamicSpirit · Thursday at 17:14

Out of interest, in terms of capacity for passengers, is there actually any need for Piccadilly (or District) trains to run all the way to Uxbridge? Or would stopping all trains at Rayners Lane provide an adequate service (if only the infrastructure existed to turn sufficient trains there)? From Rayners Lane, the Met takes about 26 minutes to get to Baker Street, but the Piccadilly takes about 29 minutes just to get to Hammersmith - so I can't imagine many people between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge would choose the Piccadilly to get to central London. Still less the slower District if the lines swapped over. I therefore wonder whether building an additional turnback siding at Rayners Lane so all Piccadilly trains could turn back there, while possibly giving a more frequent service between Rayners Lane and Ealing Common would give better use of resources.

notverydeep · Thursday at 17:40

DynamicSpirit said:
Out of interest, in terms of capacity for passengers, is there actually any need for Piccadilly (or District) trains to run all the way to Uxbridge? Or would stopping all trains at Rayners Lane provide an adequate service (if only the infrastructure existed to turn sufficient trains there)? From Rayners Lane, the Met takes about 26 minutes to get to Baker Street, but the Piccadilly takes about 29 minutes just to get to Hammersmith - so I can't imagine many people between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge would choose the Piccadilly to get to central London. Still less the slower District if the lines swapped over. I therefore wonder whether building an additional turnback siding at Rayners Lane so all Piccadilly trains could turn back there, while possibly giving a more frequent service between Rayners Lane and Ealing Common would give better use of resources.

Service Planning is not about simply fulfilling needs though, the objective is to maximise passenger benefit within available resources (although I suspect anyone living in Ickenham and commuting to Hammersmith would consider their journey to be a need). Piccadilly services to Uxbridge exist because it minimises the total journey time of the current and forecast future passengers across the two lines. Many schemes have evaluated curtailing the Piccadilly line in the way you suggest (it would make the signalling upgrade much easier), but these invariably find that you have to spend more money (especially on redesigning Rayners Lane station to cope with more reversing trains - 12 tph at peak times) to make things worse overall - passengers would have longer journey times and additional interchange, which causes them to make fewer trips, which reduces revenue.

The only network change that is actually being considered as part of future upgrade plans is the Piccadilly line to include the Ealing Broadway branch. There is no plan to extend District trains to either Rayners Lane or Uxbridge. The reason for this is that the freed up paths on the District can be used to increase the service to Wimbledon and Richmond, both more significant traffic objectives than the Ealing branch. The Piccadilly signalling upgrade and maximum fleet size would allow for 36 tph in Central London, allowing an additional 6 tph to existing branches plus 6 tph to Ealing Broadway over the current 24 tph Central London service. Neither the signalling upgrade plan nor the additional trains are yet a committed, funded scheme and any Piccadilly line takeover of the Ealing Broadway service, while it is the current assumption would still depend on the re-evaluation of the costs and benefits that will be essential to secure funding in the future.

BrianW said:
I don't see 'spare' stock (and crew) standing idle in sidings ready to leap into extra service frequencies- maybe I'm wrong there.

No they do not exist and as outlined above, they would need to be procured (and recruited) for the proposed increased services. Piccadilly services to Ealing Broadway would be dependent on (at least) the upgraded signalling and the follow on train order being funded.

Piccadilly Line Uxbridge branch - future improvements?

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

New Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member