Piccadilly line to Ealing Broadway

[rebmcr]

I don't understand why you'd want to cut out Turnham Green on the District when its got its own platforms. Most economically the Ealing Broadway and Uxbridge branches only of the Picc could serve Chiswick Park on the outer tracks with a new junction just west of the District divergence at Turnham Green. The Heathrow trains would stay on the middle pair and avoid Chiswick Park, as shown here:

Indeed, it seems as though @LU_timetabler began typing with Chiswick & Turnam the right way round, but then swapped them by mistake? Like so (potential corrections in red):

The Piccadilly will eventually take over Ealing Broadway service from Ealing Common. The District will then not serve Chiswick Park or Turnham Green. Chiswick Park will become a Piccadilly served station. Plans unclear for Turnham Green - possibly it might be relocated onto the Richmond branch.

 

[ijmad]

That doesn't make sense as a sentence either though, Turnham Green is already on the Richmond branch, and the Ealing Broadway branch, it's the station before they diverge and wouldn't need to be relocated.

 

[MatthewRead]

The Piccadilly will eventually take over Ealing Broadway service from Ealing Common. The District will then not serve Chiswick Park or Turnham Green. Turnham Green will become a Piccadilly served station. Plans unclear for Chiswick Park - possibly it might be relocated onto the Richmond branch. The District reversing at Northfields could be achieved by tipping out on the local westbound, running into the depot, and then exiting the depot via the existing flyover onto the eastbound tracks is possible, but not planned. The Piccadilly currently does this move regularly. The District will continue to use Ealing Common depot with a flyover from Acton Town westbound local tracks being planned to allow direct access from the east - which is currently not possible. I should say: The final plans for this change are far from definite, and could very well change, depending on financing, but the general desire is to get District and Piccadilly services either completely independant, or only interfere with each other during start-up / close-down with depot moves.

Where is this information from may I ask?

 

[Dstock7080]

Where is this information from may I ask?

see post #3 in this thread, which was an answer to your original question about Piccadilly Line trains to Ealing Broadway.

 

[MatthewRead]

see post #3 in this thread, which was an answer to your original question about Piccadilly Line trains to Ealing Broadway.

But what will happen to Turnham Green will the District line stop serving it's really confusing for me

 

[bluegoblin7]

At the moment, nothing. They are proposals that are being evaluated and explored. Whatever solution will be best for the bigger picture of both lines and the wider network.

Yet again, Turnham Green is not the centre of the Universe.

 

[ijmad]

Yet again, Turnham Green is not the centre of the Universe.

Don't let the W4 brigade hear you say that!

 

[LU_timetabler]

Turnham Green would be served by Richmond branch of District and all Picc trains. Because it is the only way to get Turnham Green passengers to Ealing Broadway. The issue is with Chiswick Park. Either a new junction is needed to get Piccs for Ealing and Uxbridge on to the local line in order to call at Chiswick Park, or the station itself would need to be relocated onto the District branch serving Richmond.
These proposals are many years in the future, and far from definite, but running the Picc into Ealing Broadway is the end goal, as an extra western terminus is needed, and the consequential better service to Richmond and Wimbledon from the District is an attractive by-product.

 

[rebmcr]

running the Picc into Ealing Broadway is the end goal, as an extra western terminus is needed

Why is that — is it just that a turnaround closer to Zone 1 is desired?

I would have thought the "two" eastern termini at Arnos Grove & Cockfosters (matched-up with Heathrow & Rayners Lane) made for a balanced pattern in the west.

 

[LU_timetabler]

The new rolling stock and signalling will be designed to give a more intense service in Zone 1, probably approaching 36tph, this requires an extra terminus in order to have somewhere to send the extra trains. At times of disruption it also offers a good reverse short facility to get back on time for Rayners Lane branch trains, just as Northfields is for Heathrow trains.
The east end of the line will probably cope with the increase in trains by using stepping back at both Arnos Grove and Cockfosters.

 

[VT 390]

I've been hearing on this forum that the Piccadilly line is to take over the Ealing Broadway Branch from the District line when will this be?

Are there many passengers who use the District from Acton Town to stations past South kensington or do most either just use the district for local stations and London passengers use the Piccadilly?

 

[MatthewRead]

I've been told that the Piccadilly line's signalling upgrade is to be cancelled does this mean this idea will be dropped?

 

[Lrd]

I've been told that the Piccadilly line's signalling upgrade is to be cancelled does this mean this idea will be dropped?

It's not even been tendered yet so what is there to cancel?

Not sure if there may have been something to prolong the life of the current signalling on the books? That may have been cancelled if they have deemed it fit to carry on until the whole resignalling?

 

[Mojo]

Not sure if there may have been something to prolong the life of the current signalling on the books? That may have been cancelled if they have deemed it fit to carry on until the whole resignalling?

The initial stages of this have already been carried out and brought into service, and work continues with the rest of the line. It has been /delayed/, but a revised date was published and work continues toward the new deadlines.

 

[TubeMapCentral]

The main motivation for this seems to be to enhance the Wimbledon and Richmond branches of the District Line. The Wimbledon branch I can understand, shame about Chelsey-Hackney, which seems to have been hi-jacked and diverted. The Richmond branch is less obvious. Apart from Hammersmith and Victoria it seems to be the slow route to just about everywhere. For example, travelling to Central London, how would journey times compare with Overground to Old Oak Common, then (hmmm, 350m interchange) Crossrail 1 to central London?

 

[VT 390]

The main motivation for this seems to be to enhance the Wimbledon and Richmond branches of the District Line. The Wimbledon branch I can understand, shame about Chelsey-Hackney, which seems to have been hi-jacked and diverted. The Richmond branch is less obvious. Apart from Hammersmith and Victoria it seems to be the slow route to just about everywhere. For example, travelling to Central London, how would journey times compare with Overground to Old Oak Common, then (hmmm, 350m interchange) Crossrail 1 to central London?

Though that is the main reason for converting the Ealing branch to the Piccadilly it also would provide somewhere for the proposed extra Piccadilly line trains to go as there is no extra trains required to Rayner's Lane (especially off peak) and Heathrow passengers will mostly switch to Crossrail freeing up space for Hounslow passengers so the extra services could go to Ealing Broadway.

 

[swt_passenger]

The main motivation for this seems to be to enhance the Wimbledon and Richmond branches of the District Line. The Wimbledon branch I can understand, shame about Chelsey-Hackney, which seems to have been hi-jacked and diverted. The Richmond branch is less obvious. Apart from Hammersmith and Victoria it seems to be the slow route to just about everywhere. For example, travelling to Central London, how would journey times compare with Overground to Old Oak Common, then (hmmm, 350m interchange) Crossrail 1 to central London?

Perhaps they wouldn’t necessarily need to share the diverted services equally between Wimbledon and Richmond? All depends on the required capacity on the remaining District service between Turnham Green and Hammersmith? I expect though they’ll do whatever is best to have a balanced timetable spread evenly round the clock face on the section east of Earls Court.

 

[swt_passenger]

Though that is the main reason for converting the Ealing branch to the Piccadilly it also would provide somewhere for the proposed extra Piccadilly line trains to go as there is no extra trains required to Rayner's Lane (especially off peak) and Heathrow passengers will mostly switch to Crossrail freeing up space for Hounslow passengers so the extra services could go to Ealing Broadway.

It’s explained the opposite way around in the Mayoral transport strategy 2017 and 2018 versions, ie the additional Piccadilly western terminus for their increased service is driving the operational requirement, and the District changes are the side effect.

 

[TubeMapCentral]

... no extra trains required to Rayner's Lane (especially off peak) and Heathrow passengers will mostly switch to Crossrail freeing up space for Hounslow passengers so the extra services could go to Ealing Broadway.

Does the eastern extremity require all this enhanced service? Between what two points are all these extra trains really necessary? I can see that Crossrail is going to have big implications for Heathrow (and Ealing Broadway) Underground usage. I can also think of ways in which really clever ATO could get a four-branch metro to work reliably, but in the harsh realities of real operation, more often than not, complex services are brittle.

It’s explained the opposite way around in the Mayoral transport strategy 2017 and 2018 versions, ie the additional Piccadilly western terminus for their increased service is driving the operational requirement, and the District changes are the side effect.

That makes it sound as though they are making it up as they go along. If the single line to Cockfosters can be made to reverse all these trains, why can't the three western branches absorb them? Northfields reversers for example, nice four platform station near a depot.

 

[MatthewRead]

The initial stages of this have already been carried out and brought into service, and work continues with the rest of the line. It has been /delayed/, but a revised date was published and work continues toward the new deadlines.

When will that be?

 

[Mojo]

When will that be?

This document, that I found on the TfL website from a Google search, says October 2019:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20180516-item09-lu-signalling.pdf

 

[MarkyT]

That makes it sound as though they are making it up as they go along. If the single line to Cockfosters can be made to reverse all these trains, why can't the three western branches absorb them? Northfields reversers for example, nice four platform station near a depot.

The service at the Cockfosters end can easily be thinned by turning short at Arnos Grove, with its nice centre platform arrangement. The Piccadilly going to Ealing Broadway is a western equivalent. Northfields would be an alternative but I'd have thought Ealing Broadway is a more useful destination with its connections. And it means the platform height at Ealing Common can be set for tube stock only rather than a compromise to also accommodate S-stock.

 

[VT 390]

The service at the Cockfosters end can easily be thinned by turning short at Arnos Grove, with its nice centre platform arrangement. The Piccadilly going to Ealing Broadway is a western equivalent. Northfields would be an alternative but I'd have thought Ealing Broadway is a more useful destination with its connections. And it means the platform height at Ealing Common can be set for tube stock only rather than a compromise to also accommodate S-stock.

It is also possible to turn trains back at Acton Town if there was not enough demand for the service at Northfields.
Another benefit of running the Piccadilly to Ealing Broadway will be that Crossrail will have a direct interchange with the Piccadilly line which is currently missing (unless you count Heathrow)

 

[TubeMapCentral]

The service at the Cockfosters end can easily be thinned by turning short at Arnos Grove, with its nice centre platform arrangement. The Piccadilly going to Ealing Broadway is a western equivalent. Northfields would be an alternative but I'd have thought Ealing Broadway is a more useful destination with its connections. And it means the platform height at Ealing Common can be set for tube stock only rather than a compromise to also accommodate S-stock.

Its not a very useful destination at all if sevice disruption means that trains are being cancelled and/or an emergency shuttle service is running from Acton Town.

Plenty of compromise platforms on the Uxbridge branch, maybe the District Line should go to Ealing Broadway and Uxbridge

 

[VT 390]

Plenty of compromise platforms on the Uxbridge branch, maybe the District Line should go to Ealing Broadway and Uxbridge[/QUOTE]

The problem with the District serving both Ealing and Uxbridge is that there would have to either be a reduction in both branches services as only 6tph (district) go to Ealing Broadway which would mean the service level would drop a lot if some services moved to Uxbridge services and stations between Rayners Lane and North Ealing would also have a less frequent service. The only other options would be to divert other District services to Uxbridge which would reduce the frequency to Richmond or Wimbledon which is not really an option especially on the Wimbledon branch, otherwise a more Frequent District service in the core could provide he services but would it not be better to put any extra services towards Wimbledon?

 

[TubeMapCentral]

but would it not be better to put any extra services towards Wimbledon?

Absolutely, but if the result is a chronically unreliable Piccadilly Line, then operational difficulties have been traded, not solved.

 

[ijmad]

I've often thought our tube lines have too many branches. Only two Paris Metro lines have branches - and both those only branch in half. Having three western branches is just too many for any line, Piccadilly included, even if it is running at 36tph. I'd leave the District Line with its current branches, leave the Piccadilly Line with its current branches. The Ealing Common problem would be easily solved by lowering the platforms and non-stopping the District Line.

If the system desperately needs more Wimbledon services the simplest thing to do would be to abolish the Circle Line, it's not that much of a trial to change trains at Earls Court.

 

[Railguy1]

I've often thought our tube lines have too many branches. Only two Paris Metro lines have branches - and both those only branch in half. Having three western branches is just too many for any line, Piccadilly included, even if it is running at 36tph. I'd leave the District Line with its current branches, leave the Piccadilly Line with its current branches. The Ealing Common problem would be easily solved by lowering the platforms and non-stopping the District Line.

If the system desperately needs more Wimbledon services the simplest thing to do would be to abolish the Circle Line, it's not that much of a trial to change trains at Earls Court.

That wouldn't work. There is quite significant demand of passengers travelling from Uxbridge towards Ealing Broadway that would be disadvantaged.

 

[acommuter]

I'd leave the District Line with its current branches, leave the Piccadilly Line with its current branches. The Ealing Common problem would be easily solved by lowering the platforms and non-stopping the District Line.

Which would reduce the number of trains stopping at Ealing Common. Can't imagine passengers being happy about that.
And you can't simply run more Piccadilly trains to Rayner's (and beyond) to compensate - they'd just get in the way of the Met, and South Harrow isn't ideal for terminating lots of them.

If the system desperately needs more Wimbledon services the simplest thing to do would be to abolish the Circle Line, it's not that much of a trial to change trains at Earls Court.

Yes, you could tell them to change at Earl's Court instead, for the western section, but there's the problem of dealing with passengers wanting to go from Tower Hill to Aldgate (& beyond) and vice-versa. Circle line trains are busy during peak times at these sections, and even off-peak, there's usually a crowd of people waiting at Tower Hill EB for a Circle train to come along.

 

[Busaholic]

Which would reduce the number of trains stopping at Ealing Common. Can't imagine passengers being happy about that.
And you can't simply run more Piccadilly trains to Rayner's (and beyond) to compensate - they'd just get in the way of the Met, and South Harrow isn't ideal for terminating lots of them.



Yes, you could tell them to change at Earl's Court instead, for the western section, but there's the problem of dealing with passengers wanting to go from Tower Hill to Aldgate (& beyond) and vice-versa. Circle line trains are busy during peak times at these sections, and even off-peak, there's usually a crowd of people waiting at Tower Hill EB for a Circle train to come along.

Aldgate itself could easily be got rid of, Aldgate East well able to compensate, but, as you say, it's Tower Hill to Liverpool Street and beyond that requires serving. also stations like Temple and Blackfriars to Liverpool Street specifically, the bus services on that corridor now being so sparse, partly as a result of the chronic road traffic.