Greenford Branch

[zwk500]

Can someone remind us why this line survives? There are bus services (probably more frequent than the train) that connect Greenford with West Ealing and Ealing Broadway, and Greenford with Greenford Station, let alone to two Sudbury stations, two Wembley stations, two Ruislip stations, Southall and Hayes&Harlington and Heathrow...

The line is used by freight trains going to/from the Calvert landfill site or Park Royal Tarmac. As the line is being kept open anyway, it's cheaper (and politically easier) just to run the service.

 

[BrianW]

its basicly a parliamentary service, the effort to cease passenger services wouldn't be worth it so easier to just run a basic service to meet obligations

Thank you Popeter45. There were plenty of services where it was thought worthy of going through the closure process, including many that the present government now feels able to restore. Did Colonel Greenford or similar gather his forces of resistance? Was it a marginal seat?

The line is used by freight trains going to/from the Calvert landfill site or Park Royal Tarmac. As the line is being kept open anyway, it's cheaper (and politically easier) just to run the service.

Ah yes ... I can picture now the Waste Concentration facility at Northolt Junction; and the former Rockware glass and Guinness Park Royal brewery together with the two ends of the line having triangular junctions thus giving access to Acton and the lines to the South and West and I guess via the North London line and Dudding etc to just about everywhere. What a wonderful line!
And it was possible to provide much needed housing by building over it in part rather than on it.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Can someone remind us why this line survives? There are bus services (probably more frequent than the train) that connect Greenford with West Ealing and Ealing Broadway, and Greenford with Greenford Station, let alone to two Sudbury stations, two Wembley stations, two Ruislip stations, Southall and Hayes&Harlington and Heathrow...

Indeed , those points were made in 1992 ! - the bay platform solution was the least worst , option - though on reflection closure might have been an option. (the route has use for diversions etc) , - options of trying to make a use for it merely increases the already poor economics.

 

[calopez]

Whilst there are, indeed, plenty of buses, they are very slow if you want to get anywhere useful, and Greenford station to West Ealing/Ealing Broadway requires a change.

A huge new housing development is nearing completion north of Greenford station, and another at Castle Bar Park. So I think there is potential for more use of the line, but that's dependent upon a number of things - completion of the new station at West Ealing (the current interchange in the down direction is dreadful), opening of Crossrail (ha!) and, with it, better connections at West Ealing, and the restoration of a clockface timetable.

Is that too much to ask/hope for?

 

[Gloster]

At one time the line was used to get the Mark III sleepers used on the Paddington-Penzance sleepers to and from Stonebridge Park where they were serviced. By going straight from Paddington to Greenford East Junction via Park Royal and then down to West Ealing, the train was able to go up to Acton Wells Junction without a reversal. It was a somewhat slow process: it was regarded as a whole day’s duty for the guard of the both morning outward and evening return workings (two guards, one for each working).

 

[317 forever]

Looking at the situation of this line has made me wonder about whether it might be better as part of the Chiltern franchise rather than the Great Western franchise.

• It was never in the plans for GWML electrification (was something about too many bridges and tunnels wasn't it?)
• If other Thames Valley Branches now get wired along with Oxford and Reading-Basingstoke, there wont be any turbos allocated to Reading, especially if the 769's are successful
• The connection from the New North Main Line to the GWML has been severed as part of HS2 works
• Chiltern will then be the only TOC operating with only DMU's in London, surely meaning it would be easier operationally to just send a Chiltern DMU rather than keep like 2 turbos at Reading for the sole purpose of the branch
• As for London Overground, this is a prime candidate for them to take over, however looking at the palaver, stress and expense TfL and the DfT took electrifying and getting new trains for the GOBLIN, in the process getting rid of a perfect set of 2 car DMU's for the Greenford branch, one would think that TfL would not be very pleased having to have just a few expensive DMU's for operating an extremely separate service to the ones they are already operating

Just wondering about the whole situ

It's a pity that the Greenford - West Ealing service was not transferred to London Overground and timed to inherit the 172s from Goblin.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's a pity that the Greenford - West Ealing service was not transferred to London Overground and timed to inherit the 172s from Goblin.

But, (as has been pointed out already), that gives absolutely no operational benefits, because LO no longer operate DMUs anywhere else, and it would be an isolated service.

Basically, the reasons for not transferring it to Chiltern apply even further to LO.

 

[317 forever]

But, (as has been pointed out already), that gives absolutely no operational benefits, because LO no longer operate DMUs anywhere else, and it would be an isolated service.

Basically, the reasons for not transferring it to Chiltern apply even further to LO.

Of course, the 172s have already been allocated to West Midlands.

The comparison I draw is with Romford - Upminster, self-contained and part of London Overground even though separated from any other LO operation.

 

[30907]

Of course, the 172s have already been allocated to West Midlands.

The comparison I draw is with Romford - Upminster, self-contained and part of London Overground even though separated from any other LO operation.

....but operated with a LO standard unit and from Ilford depot 10 minutes away.

 

[JonathanH]

Of course, the 172s have already been allocated to West Midlands.

The comparison I draw is with Romford - Upminster, self-contained and part of London Overground even though separated from any other LO operation.

Yes, but that can at least use the same rolling stock and depot as another bit of the operation. LO would have to have a fleet of two diesel units to run the Greenford route and maintain suitable spare parts, maintenance expertise and traction knowledge for them. GWR have 10 2-coach Turbos for nine diagrams which is much more efficient use of rolling stock.

 

[Ianno87]

But, (as has been pointed out already), that gives absolutely no operational benefits, because LO no longer operate DMUs anywhere else, and it would be an isolated service.

Basically, the reasons for not transferring it to Chiltern apply even further to LO.

And the 8 x units needed for Gospel Oak-Barking is rather generous for the single unit Greenford shuttle!

 

[21C101]

Possibly 4th rail electrify it, put crossovers in immediately east of the platforms at Greenford and operate it as a branch of the Central Line with a four car 1992 stock train (with second cab modified for normal use) shuttling up and down from Greenford to West Ealing.

Or go the whole hog and run from West Ealing bay to West Ruislip every 20 minutes with four car tube units..

 

[JonathanH]

Possibly 4th rail electrify it, put crossovers in immediately east of the platforms at Greenford and operate it as a branch of the Central Line with a four car 1992 stock train (with second cab modified for normal use) shuttling up and down from Greenford to West Ealing.

While that seems possible, my guess is that you would need to move the platforms to the west at Greenford to fit in the crossovers at the east end. The mainline railway would need to retain access to the line as well. Also, some infrastructure changes at West Ealing for the different types of electrification in near proximity.

A wider question on the TfL takeover is whether a West Ealing to West Ruislip service would be appreciated by the locals when it seems feasible that there could be a North Acton to Old Oak Common walking link at lower cost.

 

[Ianno87]

Or go the whole hog and run from West Ealing bay to West Ruislip every 20 minutes with four car tube units..

Good way to add unreliability to the whole Central line for a token shuttle with about 5 passengers per train.

 

[21C101]

Good way to add unreliability to the whole Central line for a token shuttle with about 5 passengers per train.

Hardly.

With half the Central Line services going to Ealing Broadway there are plenty of paths at the Ruislip End and little if anything else uses the Greenford branch.

 

[JonathanH]

Hardly.

With half the Central Line services going to Ealing Broadway there are plenty of paths at the Ruislip End and little if anything else uses the Greenford branch.

Still seems like it would be overkill though. Is there a point that turnarounds on the longer distance services at West Ruislip would have to be shortened to accommodate additional use of the platforms for West Ealing services?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think - many years ago - a Central line takeover was offered. There were no return phone calls on this matter. No value in adding even more infrastructure and operating costs onto this line. I thought it was doing well with about 7 passengers on it recently. That is not going to fund new crossovers and signalling, let alone a 4 car train vice a 2 car diesel !

 

[Ianno87]

Hardly.

With half the Central Line services going to Ealing Broadway there are plenty of paths at the Ruislip End and little if anything else uses the Greenford branch.

The only way you can get a reliable central area service (when you have multiple branches to blend together into a high frequencyy service at White City) is to have a bit of "bunce" on each branch to absorb minor delay, and not fill this up with trains carrying nobody.

 

[zwk500]

With half the Central Line services going to Ealing Broadway there are plenty of paths at the Ruislip End and little if anything else uses the Greenford branch.

My emphasis

As mentioned before, at least 2 significant freight flows use the Greenford branch. If you convert it to LU operation, you'd need to fit tripcocks and other LU safety devices to all locos that would work the flows, or come up with some alternative method of working to keep the tube trains safe. Not impossible, but costly, so who coughs up? The freight has a significant economic and social impact in the jobs at the tarmac plant it supports and the lorries it takes off the road. Why impose additional costs on it for the dubious benefit of a passenger service that, clearly, has minimal demand?

Possibly 4th rail electrify it, put crossovers in immediately east of the platforms at Greenford and operate it as a branch of the Central Line with a four car 1992 stock train (with second cab modified for normal use) shuttling up and down from Greenford to West Ealing.

Or go the whole hog and run from West Ealing bay to West Ruislip every 20 minutes with four car tube units..

Who would pay for the electrification, crossovers, and for the platform lengths to be doubled at every station? Especially as the increase in fare revenue wouldn't even cover the increase in operational costs, let alone recover the capital costs of the works.

 

[21C101]

Another alternative would be to use 769s (or equivalent) to run a Heathrow to Milton Keynes via Ruislip, High Wycombe, Aylesbury and East-West Rail service, with Greenford Main Line platform reopened and a residual token parliamentary service to the intermediate halts between West Ealing and Greenford (and to the bay platform at West Ealing).

 

[JonathanH]

Another alternative would be to use 769s (or equivalent) to run a Heathrow to Milton Keynes via Ruislip, High Wycombe, Aylesbury and East-West Rail service, with Greenford Main Line platform reopened and a residual token parliamentary service to the intermediate halts between West Ealing and Greenford (and to the bay platform at West Ealing).

That sounds like a solution looking for a problem. There is no chance of that happening - it seems to repurpose the Greenford line for something completely different that there isn't line capacity for without even retaining the service to intermediate stations.

 

[21C101]

It provides a replacement for Bourne End to High Wycombe to give access to Heathrow and gets rid of poorly used halts (bar one train a week) without having to go through the political nightmare of a formal closure process.

 

[JonathanH]

It provides a replacement for Bourne End to High Wycombe to give access to Heathrow and gets rid of the halts (bar one train a week) without having to go through the political nightmare of a formal closure process.

Yes, but you can equally avoid a closure process by sending a unit up the line off another service to run one train a day without the obscure idea of running a through service over congested lines. Assuming Crossrail one day run a full service west of London (which admittedly seems unlikely at the moment) there are no paths to cross a High Wycombe to Heathrow service at Hanwell.

 

[geordieblue]

Alternatively, electrify it overhead and run it as an isolated feeder for Crossrail (not necessarily with the same stock). Opportunities for electrified freight, removes diesel traction from London, and puts the line on the TfL map. You could do the same with Romford-Upminster at the same time if you wanted.

 

[JonathanH]

Alternatively, electrify it overhead and run it as an isolated feeder for Crossrail (not necessarily with the same stock). Opportunities for electrified freight, removes diesel traction from London, and puts the line on the TfL map. You could do the same with Romford-Upminster at the same time if you wanted.

Not happening - given no planning for electrification is likely to have happened and there are reports of a large cut in Network Rail funding. I think anything which requires infrastructure spending on this route can be dismissed for the next 20 years.

 

[geordieblue]

Not happening - given no planning for electrification is likely to have happened and there are reports of a large cut in Network Rail funding. I think anything which requires infrastructure spending on this route can be dismissed for the next 20 years.

It was a suggestion - this is the speculative section after all - and it's a heck of a lot more doable than some of the other ideas on this thread.

 

[swt_passenger]

The reason for removing through GWR trains to the branch from Paddington is to avoid flat crossing conflicts at West Ealing once Crossrail is fully running. That regularly explained reason would also rule out any trains running off the branch towards Heathrow.

 

[HST43257]

I’d like to see the line changed to be single track to cut costs. I doubt this would be a problem, given it is 1 set going up and down the line. Southbound freight can move on the route when the service train is going towards Greenford, just in front of the service train coming back towards West Ealing. If the schedule was tightened a bit (getting rid of the allowances between SGN and GFD), you could create a situation where there’s a 3 min wait at Greenford and a 7 min wait at West Ealing, enabling more connections potentially and room for northbound freight.

A cycle track on the 2nd line could be a nice touch?

 

[Gloster]

I’d like to see the line changed to be single track to cut costs. I doubt this would be a problem, given it is 1 set going up and down the line. Southbound freight can move on the route when the service train is going towards Greenford, just in front of the service train coming back towards West Ealing. If the schedule was tightened a bit (getting rid of the allowances between SGN and GFD), you could create a situation where there’s a 3 min wait at Greenford and a 7 min wait at West Ealing, enabling more connections potentially and room for northbound freight.

A cycle track on the 2nd line could be a nice touch?

That is a lot of resignalling work and a lot of expense.

And what happens if the southbound freight has to wait for a pathway on the main line. Building in provision for that will only add to the expense.

 

[HST43257]

That is a lot of resignalling work and a lot of expense.

And what happens if the southbound freight has to wait for a pathway on the main line. Building in provision for that will only add to the expense.

You could keep a small length of the second line between West Ealing and Drayton Green, or however near/far you’d need to keep it to accommodate the trains on that line.

I’d think about doing it when the next track replacement works are due to come around to minimise the extra track and extra costs.

it may cost a fair bit to resignal and things but money should surely be made back because there’s less track to maintain.