'Losing' the Greenford Branch

[leytongabriel]

As we know, Greenford station is run by Tfl and the Greenford branch by GWR. For as long as I can remember it's been pretty difficult to see if and when trains were running at ground floor level. There was a single timetable poster usually obscured by a mobile Tfl sign. Now there is nothing at all before you cross the ticket barrier. No timetable,
no indicator, no signs. It's lost from sight.

Writing to Tfl you are told it's a GWR service, writing to GWR, it's a Tfl station of course. It was on old BR technique when they wanted to close a line, not to put timetables up to put off everyone except the most determined regulars. Is GWR doing the same? Even if they said most people check their phones for train times now, we still need some clear signage. No wonder passenger numbers are so low.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Passenger numbers are low because it's an awful service serving a load of places that have plenty of alternatives. Hourly services within London basically serve no purpose because most people choose the frequent alternatives instead - the "Chiltern Metro" service is the same, two car once an hour. It would be no great loss.

 

[mangyiscute]

I'd love to see it integrated into TfL as either a branch line as it is, but with full TfL branding, or if possible integrated into the Elizabeth line. It reminds me of the Upminster to Romford branch, which I think was well revived my TfL. I would hate to see any railway line left to die, especially in London.

 

[Benjwri]

Passenger numbers are low because it's an awful service serving a load of places that have plenty of alternatives. Hourly services within London basically serve no purpose because most people choose the frequent alternatives instead - the "Chiltern Metro" service is the same, two car once an hour. It would be no great loss.

I echo this, it is almost entirely useless. Traveling from the East I cannot find a situation where it isn't quicker to take the Central Line, or even a bus. Travelling from the West you have to take 2 Elizabeth Line trains from Reading to even get to West Ealing (Reading Elizabeth Line trains don't stop, so a change is needed at or after Hayes). The quicker option is to go via Paddington, and once you're at Paddington it's quicker to take the Central line, which if you're using contactless is the same price.

The Greenford branch is stuck in the odd situation where it is a GWR 'island', surrounded by TfL, and in my opinion is a huge waste of money, and a valuable Turbo. I'd say it's almost inevitable it will either be lost or taken over by TfL in some way, although the difficulty of resourcing a unit is an issue. I feel the battery trial is all that is holding off one of these options, and that is likely happening here because of it's low passenger usage.

I'd love to see it integrated into TfL as either a branch line as it is, but with full TfL branding, or if possible integrated into the Elizabeth line. It reminds me of the Upminster to Romford branch, which I think was well revived my TfL. I would hate to see any railway line left to die, especially in London.

The main issue is it isn't really near any of the Overground network, so there isn't even really a close depot, and also the Overground doesn't operate any DMUs anymore. Unless the line were electrified, which quite honestly isn't happening, they aren't going to invest in a new train type, having to buy probably two of those trains, and train their crew, for such a low use line. Upminster to Romford is far more used as well.

 

[JN114]

It’s had and continuing to have plenty of money invested into it - with the alterations at West Ealing to allow it to terminate there adding many millions to the station rebuild there; and now the fast charge battery train trial.

If GWR were serious about wanting to get rid of it, they’re spending an awful lot of money making it look like they want to keep it.

Perhaps there’s no conspiracy here, and the reply from GWR of “signage at a TfL station is a TfL matter” was actually bang on the money.

 

[The Quincunx]

"Almost entirely useless"? Not to me, it isn't! I went to Beaconsfield last weekend - West Ealing to Greenford; Greenford to South Ruislip; South Ruislip to Beaconsfield. Much better than shlepping all the way into Marylebone and back out again.

 

[swt_passenger]

It certainly can’t be “integrated into Crossrail“ as someone suggested, the reason it was effectively disconnected from Paddington was to deconflict it with Crossrail, removing crossing moves onto the branch. It’s not electrified so why would TfL take it on, their last DMUs went away with the GOBLIN wiring. Transfer to Chiltern was thought about but ruled out, because it brought no operational benefits. Was still remote from their normal depot.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Passenger numbers are low because it's an awful service serving a load of places that have plenty of alternatives. Hourly services within London basically serve no purpose because most people choose the frequent alternatives instead - the "Chiltern Metro" service is the same, two car once an hour. It would be no great loss.

But it isn’t an hourly service, it’s half-hourly. The same as at many other London suburban railway stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it isn’t an hourly service, it’s half-hourly. The same as at many other London suburban railway stations.

I stand corrected, I was confusing its frequency with the Chiltern Metro, but it is well provided with alternatives that are much better, hence why it's not heavily used. It was more use when it went to London, but a 2-car unit was an incredible waste of paths.

 

[LLivery]

Writing to Tfl you are told it's a GWR service, writing to GWR, it's a Tfl station of course. It was on old BR technique when they wanted to close a line, not to put timetables up to put off everyone except the most determined regulars. Is GWR doing the same? Even if they said most people check their phones for train times now, we still need some clear signage. No wonder passenger numbers are so low.

I'd be a right pain and send an email, addressed to the relevant people at TfL, GWR, the local MP(s) and London Assembly Member(s), explaining you've been given contradictory answers and you would like them to talk to each other to get it sorted. Also, add your case as to why the current situation is not good enough and you've CC'd the politicians for knowledge.

Organisations hate you tagging a load of people in emails and many hate having politicians involved because they then feel a need to acutally do something and they know you won't rest until they fix it.

I'd imagine it is indeed TfL's job to put them up, as it is at my local TfL stations shared with Southern, but surely GWR provides the posters?

The branch should just get a battery unit and run by the Liz Line under LO branding, kind of like GWR-Heathrow Express

 

[JohnRegular]

If - if - you were prepared to build a grade separated junction at West Ealing, put up the wires, extend the platforms, provide any other required signalling and station upgrades, and could find the paths and rolling stock to run Elizabeth Line trains to Greenford, I have no doubt use on the branch would skyrocket.

But would it be worth it? Almost certainly not.

I suspect the branch will trundle along, with battery units being the most exciting development that can be hoped for.

 

[Benjwri]

"Almost entirely useless"? Not to me, it isn't! I went to Beaconsfield last weekend - West Ealing to Greenford; Greenford to South Ruislip; South Ruislip to Beaconsfield. Much better than shlepping all the way into Marylebone and back out again.

A journey which would've been far quicker and cheaper taking the E7 from West Ealing to South Ruislip

If GWR were serious about wanting to get rid of it, they’re spending an awful lot of money making it look like they want to keep it.

I can't talk about the station rebuild, but could it not also be that the fast battery trial is taking place precisely because they don't care. It's the quietest branch on GWR's network, so it can handle only 2 cars on a smaller train, and when it fails it affects relativesy few people, so costs them less.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't talk about the station rebuild, but could it not also be that the fast battery trial is taking place precisely because they don't care. It's the quietest branch on GWR's network, so it can handle only 2 cars on a smaller train, and when it fails it affects relativesy few people, so costs them less.

Almost certainly.

 

[JN114]

I can't talk about the station rebuild, but could it not also be that the fast battery trial is taking place precisely because they don't care. It's the quietest branch on GWR's network, so it can handle only 2 cars on a smaller train, and when it fails it affects relativesy few people, so costs them less.

Almost certainly.

Or, much more simply, there are zero plans to close it? There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy.

The “issue” in the OP is an apparent lack of signage at TfL-managed Greenford station. That’s it.

The DfT are directing operators to make sweeping cuts to services, with zero threat of repercussions. If there was the remotest desire to close the branch it would have been closed there and then. It hasn’t, indeed in a time of cuts is getting investment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think there's a plan to close it per-se. I just think it wouldn't be a massive loss if it did close.

I'd not call the battery trial there investment, I'd agree with those saying it's being done there because if a Marston Vale style disaster is the result of it (with poor or no service for an extended period) then there will be few people too bothered about it.

 

[PGAT]

Changing operators or closing the line is probably more effort than it’s worth from GWR’s perspective. Things are hunky dory the way they are now

 

[PTR 444]

Would the line get more use if London Underground took it over as a branch of the Central Line? The Perivale - South Greenford chord could be repurposed so it connects directly to the Central Line, and a set number of services from the east would use it to terminate at West Ealing. There would no longer be a direct service between South Greenford and Greenford, but the reinstatement of direct trains from the branch into Central London should compensate for this.

 

[matt_world2004]

Dft don't want it. They wanted it handed over TfL but TfL don't want it either.there is a limit as to what you can do operationally with it

 

[moonarrow458]

If - if - you were prepared to build a grade separated junction at West Ealing, put up the wires, extend the platforms, provide any other required signalling and station upgrades, and could find the paths and rolling stock to run Elizabeth Line trains to Greenford, I have no doubt use on the branch would skyrocket.

But would it be worth it? Almost certainly not.

Whether it would be worth it is one thing but it would be impossible to fit Elizabeth line trains in their 9 car format on the branch. Reason being. The Greenford Bay is not long enough. Could that be extended, possibly at some cost, but equally might foul the junction connecting to the Acton to Northolt /South Ruislip stub line.

The bigger issue would be Drayton Green which under such circumstances would be forced to close as the platforms cannot be extended beyobd their 2 cars as at the northern end there is the Drayton Green tunnel, whilst immediately at the southern end there is a junction as the branch divides, with a spur to the GWML at Hanwell, and then of course the route into West Ealing. So even if the Elizabeth line trains used SDO you would have the rear 7 coaches fouling the junction, or would only be able to open the rear 2. Both I imagine would be operationally unworkable. So then Drayton Green closes giving the branch even less purpose.

Realistically the only improvements that could be made would be to extend the service to West Ruislip or Gerrard Cross having 1tph West Ealing to Greenford and 1tph West Ealing to West Ruislip /Gerrards Cross that interwork at West Ealing. That would give the branch some more purpose and improve NorthWest and West London connectivity into Buckinghamshire but is quite unlikely to happen. Under such circumstances id imagine Chiltern would run it.

Equally unlikely but a different possibility would be to reformat the service to a Hayes & Harlington Bay to Greenford Bay service using the Hanwell to Drayton Green spur. That may open up more links and better suit demand than duplicating bus services at am inferior frequency as is the case today. That would obviously require an extra unit and there may not be paths for it. But those are the only feasible (operationally /not necessarily financially) options imo for further developing the Greenford Branch

 

[W-on-Sea]

The Emerson Park branch always had substantial usage for school journeys (back in the days when a) children had to pay, and b) when there was non-negligable traffic from places on the GEML to what were then the de facto selective schools in the Upminster area. And that line provides a quicker alternative than the frequent buses between the town centres of Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster.....
Especially without the direct link to Ealing Broadway, I'm not sure than anything similar can be said of the Greenford branch

 

[90sWereBetter]

If (and it's a big IF) the New North Line ever gets reconnected to the network at Old Oak Common, the Greenford line could see a new lease of life. There were rumours Chiltern wanted to use OOC when it opens.

 

[Benjwri]

Or, much more simply, there are zero plans to close it? There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy.

The “issue” in the OP is an apparent lack of signage at TfL-managed Greenford station. That’s it.

The DfT are directing operators to make sweeping cuts to services, with zero threat of repercussions. If there was the remotest desire to close the branch it would have been closed there and then. It hasn’t, indeed in a time of cuts is getting investment.

As mentioned by others I don’t think it will actually close, closing a line is very expensive, which is why parliamentary trains have existed in the past, but with Greenford once you have a train there you might as well run the service.

Not to mention the battery trial is one of GWR’s targets from the DfT, so running it helps them get their performance bonuses.

The line is in my opinion stuck in a state where it is more expensive to close it than run it, so GWR are trying to run it as cheaply as possible.

If (and it's a big IF) the New North Line ever gets reconnected to the network at Old Oak Common, the Greenford line could see a new lease of life. There were rumours Chiltern wanted to use OOC when it opens.

If the New North Line ever reopened it would kill the Greenford Line. Who would want to use it when they could go to Old Oak Common where they could connect onto a huge amount of trains, whereas West Ealing offers only the Elizabeth Line to Heathrow.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Rather than trying to shoehorn it into Overground or the Elizabeth Line (or indeed GWR), would sticking third (and fourth) rails down and running it as a Central Line shuttle (using a shortened 2/3/4-car set) be less problematic? If putting juice rails down in the open air is a no-no, would handing over the battery D-stock (if that's still being tried) to be resourced from the Central Line rather than GWR be less awkward?

 

[mangyiscute]

What if there was some way of extending the central line terminus from Ealing Broadway to west Ealing, and then you run central line trains via Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, the greenford branch where they then reconnect with the West Ruislip branch and continue to West Ruislip.

 

[12LDA28C]

Realistically the only improvements that could be made would be to extend the service to West Ruislip or Gerrard Cross having 1tph West Ealing to Greenford and 1tph West Ealing to West Ruislip /Gerrards Cross that interwork at West Ealing. That would give the branch some more purpose and improve NorthWest and West London connectivity into Buckinghamshire but is quite unlikely to happen. Under such circumstances id imagine Chiltern would run it.

This has zero chance of happening given that Chiltern stopped running their one train a day to West Ealing some time ago as it was becoming increasingly difficult to resource for zero return. Sometimes the train ran with no passengers whatsoever, just the driver and guard.

What if there was some way of extending the central line terminus from Ealing Broadway to west Ealing, and then you run central line trains via Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, the greenford branch where they then reconnect with the West Ruislip branch and continue to West Ruislip.

The original post was about station signage. Not sure why we seem to have moved into the realms of cloudcuckooland what ifs and pointless speculation.

 

[PGAT]

What if there was some way of extending the central line terminus from Ealing Broadway to west Ealing, and then you run central line trains via Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, the greenford branch where they then reconnect with the West Ruislip branch and continue to West Ruislip.

If there was space for new parallel tracks between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing then it would probably be plausible but platform lengths would be an issue

 

[Benjwri]

This has got hugely of topic into the speculative region. None of these ideas would ever get funded for a line that would still be most likely quicker by bus and is very quiet anyways.

 

[Irascible]

Rather than trying to shoehorn it into Overground or the Elizabeth Line (or indeed GWR), would sticking third (and fourth) rails down and running it as a Central Line shuttle (using a shortened 2/3/4-car set) be less problematic? If putting juice rails down in the open air is a no-no, would handing over the battery D-stock (if that's still being tried) to be resourced from the Central Line rather than GWR be less awkward?

Do we allow freight & random passenger stock over current 4th rail lines? there is or certainly was a variety of traffic up the line at times, and it's the only way of connecting the Chiltern line to Paddington atm - I have a sneaking suspicion there's some legal loophole being exploited there - plus it's a diversory route.

There's no particular reason a central line train couldn't use batteries, I guess.

 

[The exile]

Rather than trying to shoehorn it into Overground or the Elizabeth Line (or indeed GWR), would sticking third (and fourth) rails down and running it as a Central Line shuttle (using a shortened 2/3/4-car set) be less problematic? If putting juice rails down in the open air is a no-no, would handing over the battery D-stock (if that's still being tried) to be resourced from the Central Line rather than GWR be less awkward?

Given the fact that GWR are eyeing the battery D78s for (some of?) the other branches, not really.

 

[matt_world2004]

Do we allow freight & random passenger stock over current 4th rail lines? there is or certainly was a variety of traffic up the line at times, and it's the only way of connecting the Chiltern line to Paddington atm - I have a sneaking suspicion there's some legal loophole being exploited there - plus it's a diversory route.

There's no particular reason a central line train couldn't use batteries, I guess.

Chiltern run diesel trains over fourth rail track so yes freight other passenger trains can be ran over fourth rail.