'Losing' the Greenford Branch

[MarkyT]

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

Not just 'eyeing up'. GWR acquired a considerable quantity of the as-yet unrebuilt D78 rolling stock from the disposed assets of former Vivarail as well as the battery prototype, the ex Bedford-Bletchley cl.230 units, and the IP for the fast charging tech, so the Greenford trial could be considered a full operational prototype for the other Thames Valley branches, which could plausibly be branded and shown on the tube map as Elizabeth Line branch shuttles if desired, even if still being operated under contract by GWR, in the same way as Heathrow Express.

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

You'd need specific route clearance for the particular line and stock, and if any shared running was involved, the appropriate signalling and train protection systems would need to be fitted.

 

[Clarence Yard]

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.

Unfortunately, GWR are correct.

It’s just the usual TfL rubbish attitude to advertising other people’s services. It has happened elsewhere and they always (wrongly) try to shift the responsibility onto the other operator who has absolutely no right to fly post onto TfL property!

Someone in the Mayors office should be having a word with someone senior at TfL to make sure timetable summary posters for all services from that TfL station appear at each one, to be situated before the gateline, not after.

 

[leytongabriel]

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

Thanks for that. Yes I think having change for Greenford Branch on the Liz line announcements at West Ealing would be a step foward rather than just National Rail

Unfortunately, GWR are correct.

It’s just the usual TfL rubbish attitude to advertising other people’s services. It has happened elsewhere and they always (wrongly) try to shift the responsibility onto the other operator who has absolutely no right to fly post onto TfL property!

Someone in the Mayors office should be having a word with someone senior at TfL to make sure timetable summary posters for all services from that TfL station appear at each one, to be situated before the gateline, not after.

Noted!

 

[JohnRegular]

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.

If you were going to seriously try and turn the branch into something useful, closing Drayton Green would probably be an easy decision ( expensive and difficult closure proceedings notwithstanding). There must be very few people for whom Drayton Green is a more attractive alternative to West Ealing, Castle Bar Park or Hanwell, and this is reflected in the passenger numbers.

 

[The Quincunx]

If you were going to seriously try and turn the branch into something useful, closing Drayton Green would probably be an easy decision ( expensive and difficult closure proceedings notwithstanding). There must be very few people for whom Drayton Green is a more attractive alternative to West Ealing, Castle Bar Park or Hanwell, and this is reflected in the passenger numbers.

The closure process is certainly a right faff (especially for the poor sap at DfT who is lumbered with it - of whom I used to be one) but it is not expensive. The biggest cost is placing the notices in newspapers. Otherwise everything else is just business as usual.

 

[PeterC]

Not just 'eyeing up'. GWR acquired a considerable quantity of the as-yet unrebuilt D78 rolling stock from the disposed assets of former Vivarail as well as the battery prototype, the ex Bedford-Bletchley cl.230 units, and the IP for the fast charging tech, so the Greenford trial could be considered a full operational prototype for the other Thames Valley branches, which could plausibly be branded and shown on the tube map as Elizabeth Line branch shuttles if desired, even if still being operated under contract by GWR, in the same way as Heathrow Express.


You'd need specific route clearance for the particular line and stock, and if any shared running was involved, the appropriate signalling and train protection systems would need to be fitted.

I suggested branding the branches as Crossrail Shuttles long before the Lizzie name was announced and all the responses told me quite firmly that it was totally impossible to separate branding from operating contracts.

I don't know if that is a reality of railway operation or just opinions among some people here. Retailers can let multiple franchises for the same brand so why not TfL?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I suggested a few weeks ago the Chiltern Metro should be taken over by the Overground (and was shot down) with a new station opening at Neasden, to at least generate some cross NW-London journeys on the service.

I think West London needs some sort of a tram system anyway. Something like Feltham - Heathrow - Uxbridge/Northolt. So perhaps the Greenford shuttle could be turned into a tram and ran down the Uxbridge Road if possible.

 

[leytongabriel]

I suggested branding the branches as Crossrail Shuttles long before the Lizzie name was announced and all the responses told me quite firmly that it was totally impossible to separate branding from operating contracts.

I don't know if that is a reality of railway operation or just opinions among some people here. Retailers can let multiple franchises for the same brand so why not TfL?

Nice. Even something like Crossrail Connects making it clear it's not actually Crossrail. 'National Rail' is just not specific enough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suggested a few weeks ago the Chiltern Metro should be taken over by the Overground (and was shot down) with a new station opening at Neasden, to at least generate some cross NW-London journeys on the service.

That's because it's a two track line and there isn't therefore the capacity to make it attractive (which would mean at least 4tph) without slashing the mainline Chiltern service massively.

 

[Benjwri]

There’s a lot of talk about a lot of very expensive solutions for the Greenford branch, especially through services onto the GWML, but you have to think is that really the best use of money and resources, considering the area is relatively well connected by buses and the Central Line. Of the 4 stations solely served by the line 3 are in the top 5 least used stations in London, and the 4th isn’t far off the top 10, yet they have better service than stations with tens or nearly hundreds times more passengers a year. Realistically it has a disproportionately good service, and money is much better spend elsewhere.

 

[Backroom_boy]

There’s a lot of talk about a lot of very expensive solutions for the Greenford branch, especially through services onto the GWML, but you have to think is that really the best use of money and resources, considering the area is relatively well connected by buses and the Central Line. Of the 4 stations solely served by the line 3 are in the top 5 least used stations in London, and the 4th isn’t far off the top 10, yet they have better service than stations with tens or nearly hundreds times more passengers a year. Realistically it has a disproportionately good service, and money is much better spend elsewhere.

Yes it will only happen if its useful for another reason; like it can be used as a turnback for an existing service.

 

[leytongabriel]

The closure process is certainly a right faff (especially for the poor sap at DfT who is lumbered with it - of whom I used to be one) but it is not expensive. The biggest cost is placing the notices in newspapers. Otherwise everything else is just business as usual.

The fear is, that the next government might make the process easier.

 

[The Quincunx]

The fear is, that the next government might make the process easier.

That is certainly a possibillity (depending on who the next government is). Note that the DfT's Guidance for assessing the closure of ticket offices was substantially revised earlier this year in anticipation of that consultation. Bear in mind, however, that closures are in primary legislation and so would need a new Act to change the currrent procedure.

 

[ScotGG]

Just looked on Google and quite a lot of new homes being built next to Castle Bar Park.

If that continues then the line has a future.

 

[The Quincunx]

Just looked on Google and quite a lot of new homes being built next to Castle Bar Park.

If that continues then the line has a future.

These are replacing an existing estate that was demolished a few years ago, so not strictly "new".

 

[Meerkat]

How much non-shuttle use does the line get now it’s no use for turning trains out of Paddington - ie is the cost of the service marginal or the only thing keeping that line open?
is this an example of when the DfT should play hardball - if you want Chiltern into OOC then the Greenford line has to go?

 

[matt_world2004]

How much non-shuttle use does the line get now it’s no use for turning trains out of Paddington - ie is the cost of the service marginal or the only thing keeping that line open?
is this an example of when the DfT should play hardball - if you want Chiltern into OOC then the Greenford line has to go?

Twice a day as they unit comes from Oxford and then heads back to Oxford.

 

[12LDA28C]

How much non-shuttle use does the line get now it’s no use for turning trains out of Paddington - ie is the cost of the service marginal or the only thing keeping that line open?
is this an example of when the DfT should play hardball - if you want Chiltern into OOC then the Greenford line has to go?

I'm confused - if Chiltern eventually ends up running into OOC, why would the Greenford line 'have to go'?

Also of course, quite a bit of freight uses the line so it's not just passenger trains that need to be taken into consideration, as well as being a diversionary route.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm confused - if Chiltern eventually ends up running into OOC, why would the Greenford line 'have to go'?

Also of course, quite a bit of freight uses the line so it's not just passenger trains that need to be taken into consideration, as well as being a diversionary route.

Because OOC would take through traffic and the Greenford service would become a fairly useless, very local service that buses can cover.
Is there any saving if the line was made freight only or is it a diversionary passenger route if Marylebone is shut?

 

[PGAT]

Is there any saving if the line was made freight only or is it a diversionary passenger route if Marylebone is shut?

Assuming you avoid bureaucracy by keeping 1 passenger train per day it would release a Turbo to the wider GWR network which could help relieve congestion. Other than that, not too much saving

 

[Meerkat]

Assuming you avoid bureaucracy by keeping 1 passenger train per day it would release a Turbo to the wider GWR network which could help relieve congestion. Other than that, not too much saving

No, end all passenger trains - would this lead to maintenance/signalling savings?

 

[12LDA28C]

Because OOC would take through traffic and the Greenford service would become a fairly useless, very local service that buses can cover.
Is there any saving if the line was made freight only or is it a diversionary passenger route if Marylebone is shut?

Through traffic would be routed via Greenford East Junction and Park Royal to Old Oak Common West Junction so would not impinge on Greenford branch operations which would remain entirely independent of any Chiltern operation into OOC.

No, end all passenger trains - would this lead to maintenance/signalling savings?

Unlikely as it's a 40mph maximum speed branch anyway. However, as explained above there would be no need to remove Greenford branch passenger services.

 

[The Planner]

Even if the passenger service went, the line wouldnt close. Its still useful. You would be bringing all the freight down to Neasden Jn to get it up on to the Dudding Hill line and down to Acton Wells otherwise.

 

[zwk500]

No, end all passenger trains - would this lead to maintenance/signalling savings?

The only definite thing you'd be able to lose would be 1 set of points and the associated signals for the Greenford bay. There's freight between the GWML and Chiltern taking the west curve, and freight between the GWML and Park Royal taking the east curve. I couldn't see any booked traffic for the North chord on RTT (I could easily have missed something) so depending on future options you might be able to save a bit of money by closing Greenford West and East boxes, leaving South box as the Junction and block post between GWML and Chiltern lines (avoids having to mess with the TCB interlockings).
However, do that and you make any changes later on to put the north curve back (Chiltern to OOC?, Freight to Park Royal) massively more expensive and you also get rid of the turning move capability, which will make LSL and WCRC operations more awkward and potentially more disruptive as they either need to turn at Willesden/Acton Wells or run Bunker-first for longer (think there's no crossover at Drayton Park so can't turn Hanwell/W Ealing).

Given the Capex required to simplify any signalling, the most logical course of action would be to just leave things as they are and reduce shifts in the boxes.

 

[12LDA28C]

The only definite thing you'd be able to lose would be 1 set of points and the associated signals for the Greenford bay. There's freight between the GWML and Chiltern taking the west curve, and freight between the GWML and Park Royal taking the east curve. I couldn't see any booked traffic for the North chord on RTT (I could easily have missed something) so depending on future options you might be able to save a bit of money by closing Greenford West and East boxes, leaving South box as the Junction and block post between GWML and Chiltern lines (avoids having to mess with the TCB interlockings).
However, do that and you make any changes later on to put the north curve back (Chiltern to OOC?, Freight to Park Royal) massively more expensive and you also get rid of the turning move capability, which will make LSL and WCRC operations more awkward and potentially more disruptive as they either need to turn at Willesden/Acton Wells or run Bunker-first for longer (think there's no crossover at Drayton Park so can't turn Hanwell/W Ealing).

Given the Capex required to simplify any signalling, the most logical course of action would be to just leave things as they are and reduce shifts in the boxes.

Huh? Where are 'Greenford West' and 'Greenford South' signalboxes?

 

[zwk500]

Huh? Where are 'Greenford West' and 'Greenford South' signalboxes?

Are there not individual signalboxes for the arms of the triangle? It's been a long time since I saw a diagram of that area, but thought it was all mechanical AB.

 

[The Planner]

Are there not individual signalboxes for the arms of the triangle? It's been a long time since I saw a diagram of that area, but thought it was all mechanical AB.

Its mechanical but just the one box.

 

[zwk500]

Its mechanical but just the one box.

Oh, fair enough. Even less potential benefit.

 

[12LDA28C]

Are there not individual signalboxes for the arms of the triangle? It's been a long time since I saw a diagram of that area, but thought it was all mechanical AB.

Only Greenford East box survives, located within the triangle and ironically closer to Greenford West Junction.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Many years ago , under Crossrail 1 (RIP) , we had a good hard look at the Thames branches east of Reading to see what synergy there was for either wiring or service enhancement (I was so naive then - but it was long pre RUS , and it was I suppose strategic thinking)

Surprise , surprise - Greenford was the very weakest - and in those days it trundled into Paddington , giving a nice empty train to the grateful populace of Ealing Broadway. As you can imagine the misuse of a valuable path into Paddington was highlighted even before HEX..

The recommendations were "bin it" (something like 4 parallel buses in the area then) , try and get LUL as it was to take it on , or a damage limitation excercise by making passive provision at West Ealing for a bay, under both resignalling and electrification (making sure there were no awkward OLE etc equipment in the way) , and making space in the then underused up sidings / loops at the latter for a possible turn back for Crossrail.

Binning was a "no-way" , LUL would have run a mile - and the damage limitation plan eventually happened.

Come the Parliamentary Bill Enquiry into Crossrail 1 , one of the opponents specifically raised the Greenford - Paddington as an indication of how sparse (then !) traffic was on the West side of London and how the bill should be dropped.


It was of course , but there were other factors in play.....