Parly Train in West London Reported to be Replaced by a Bus

[Brissle Girl]

MSN

"One of London's last remaining 'ghost trains' is set to be permanently replaced by a rail replacement bus service from next month. The 11.17am Chiltern Railways non-stop train from West Ealing to West Ruislip runs only on Wednesdays, with no return journey, to provide a bare minimum passenger service over a short section of track known as the Acton to Northolt Line."

So another "parly" train appears to be heading for extinction from the December timetable change, being the last vestige of the service that once ran from Paddington to join the Chiltern Main Line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

MSN

One of London's last remaining 'ghost trains' is set to be permanently replaced by a rail replacement bus service from next month. The 11.17am Chiltern Railways non-stop train from West Ealing to West Ruislip runs only on Wednesdays, with no return journey, to provide a bare minimum passenger service over a short section of track known as the Acton to Northolt Line.

Makes sense. The train is a waste of money. As to be fair is the bus.

It's always struck me as bizarre that there isn't scope in the rules to retain a route for diversions etc without running a scheduled passenger service on it. Running Parly services is just a waste of money. This literally just needs a change in the rules.

 

[DanNCL]

It's always struck me as bizarre that there isn't scope in the rules to retain a route for diversions etc without running a scheduled passenger service on it. Running Parly services is just a waste of money. This literally just needs a change in the rules.

There must be scope for it as such lines exist. The route via Primrose Hill and the connecting line from the NLL to the ECML are two such examples.

 

[Oxfordblues]

The line won't be closing of course. The Northolt-Severn Beach binliner, Tytherington-Quainton aggregates, Grain-West Ruislip tunnel segments all come to mind.

 

[zwk500]

Makes sense. The train is a waste of money. As to be fair is the bus.

At least the bus is wasting less money

It's always struck me as bizarre that there isn't scope in the rules to retain a route for diversions etc without running a scheduled passenger service on it. Running Parly services is just a waste of money. This literally just needs a change in the rules.

I'm sure this came up in other threads, is there actually a requirement to run the route? IIRC the previous discussion worked out that there was a requirement to have a train scheduled, but not at any particular frequency. It was just that 1 per week was the easiest way to do it in the timetable structure. I'm not sure what the Network Code says about it. Are there any passenger-rated lines that don't have at least 1 WTT Passenger service per week? Maybe the 3rd side of the triangle at Brewery Jn/Philips Park, or Maindee east curve?

 

[lammergeier]

At least the bus is wasting less money

I'm sure this came up in other threads, is there actually a requirement to run the route? IIRC the previous discussion worked out that there was a requirement to have a train scheduled, but not at any particular frequency. It was just that 1 per week was the easiest way to do it in the timetable structure. I'm not sure what the Network Code says about it. Are there any passenger-rated lines that don't have at least 1 WTT Passenger service per week? Maybe the 3rd side of the triangle at Brewery Jn/Philips Park, or Maindee east curve?

As far as I know the S&K from Moorthorpe to Ferrybridge North Jcn, (and possibly as far as Milford Jcn) has no services over it at all however XC still sign it as a diversion. There should be a couple of Northern trains a day over it, but they were withdrawn due to the mess the mismanagement of the railways post Covid has created.

 

[The exile]

Has it got anything to do with retaining it as a diversionary route, though? If so, bustituting won’t do the job. Isn’t it to avoid complicated and awkward closure procedures (or is that so “yesterday”?)

 

[zwk500]

Has it got anything to do with retaining it as a diversionary route, though? If so, bustituting won’t do the job. Isn’t it to avoid complicated and awkward closure procedures (or is that so “yesterday”?)

Or is the bustitution related to work needed for fitting the fast charge system prior to the Class 230 battery unit trial? The value of the route for passenger diversions is very limited given Crossrail are now running full service as there's a severe lack of paths between Paddington and West Ealing.

 

[Horizon22]

Has it got anything to do with retaining it as a diversionary route, though? If so, bustituting won’t do the job. Isn’t it to avoid complicated and awkward closure procedures (or is that so “yesterday”?)

I don't think so. It's been a long time now since any Chiltern driver went past West Ealing so all route knowledge has probably long expired.

 

[Kite159]

Or is the bustitution related to work needed for fitting the fast charge system prior to the Class 230 battery unit trial? The value of the route for passenger diversions is very limited given Crossrail are now running full service as there's a severe lack of paths between Paddington and West Ealing.

It's only the Chiltern service getting replaced by a bus, the half hourly GWR service to Greenford remains.

It makes sense replacing the service with a bus, only for the paperwork due to the route closure. After-all any genuine* passengers wanting to travel to West Ruislip from West Ealing can simply take the GWR service to Greenford and wait for a Central line service.

(*genuine, as in those using the train to get from A to B, rather than riding the train to cover the track)

 

[Sunil_P]

It's only the Chiltern service getting replaced by a bus, the half hourly GWR service to Greenford remains.

It makes sense replacing the service with a bus, only for the paperwork due to the route closure. After-all any genuine* passengers wanting to travel to West Ruislip from West Ealing can simply take the GWR service to Greenford and wait for a Central line service.

(*genuine, as in those using the train to get from A to B, rather than riding the train to cover the track)

I did the track Greenford LUL Bay Jn to Greenford West in March 2019.

(not to be confused with the Old Oak Common to Northolt Jn service way back in the 1990s)

 

[barbette165]

What regulations govern the operation of the bus? A regular bus timetable can indicate that a stop is only served on request by passengers already on the bus at a certain point. This is often used on last journey, allowing the bus to return to the depot if it’s empty at a certain point on the route. If West Ruislip were to be timetabled as “calls on request for passengers on board at West Ealing”, would it be allowed to effectively cancel the journey if no passengers turned up?

 

[2192]

In reality, if any passengers turned up demanding the substitute bus, wouldn't they just issue a ticket and summon a taxi?

 

[zwk500]

In reality, if any passengers turned up demanding the substitute bus, wouldn't they just issue a ticket and summon a taxi?

Who'd issue the ticket and phone the cab?

 

[swt_passenger]

At least the bus is wasting less money

I'm sure this came up in other threads, is there actually a requirement to run the route? IIRC the previous discussion worked out that there was a requirement to have a train scheduled, but not at any particular frequency. It was just that 1 per week was the easiest way to do it in the timetable structure. I'm not sure what the Network Code says about it. Are there any passenger-rated lines that don't have at least 1 WTT Passenger service per week? Maybe the 3rd side of the triangle at Brewery Jn/Philips Park, or Maindee east curve?

I believe it was once posted that the route was not ever required by Chiltern’s franchise spec. It was also once posted that it didn’t maintain enough route knowledge, and when it was last used by Chiltern into Paddington they needed FOC route pilots anyway.

I think they should just remove it, it’s a fair bet nobody will ever use the bus after the first day rush of enthusiasts…

Makes sense. The train is a waste of money. As to be fair is the bus.

It's always struck me as bizarre that there isn't scope in the rules to retain a route for diversions etc without running a scheduled passenger service on it. Running Parly services is just a waste of money. This literally just needs a change in the rules.

The former route from the WLL to Waterloo is still there for hypothetical diversions, there was quite an artificial ‘hue and cry‘ when that substitute taxi ceased, around 2004. Some people worried that closure meant the tracks would be lifted.

Similarly, the eventual withdrawal of that SN Parly on the WLL that replaced a XC service, (around 2012), didn’t result in any track closures. That included a bus/taxi at one stage between Olympia and Ealing Broadway, IIRC because it was impossible to diagram a DMU to cover the non electrified section of route near Acton.

 

[Kite159]

In reality, if any passengers turned up demanding the substitute bus, wouldn't they just issue a ticket and summon a taxi?

Or those passengers will be told to use GWR to Greenford for the central line to Ruislip if the bus gets cancelled one Wednesday.

 

[BrianW]

MSN

"One of London's last remaining 'ghost trains' is set to be permanently replaced by a rail replacement bus service from next month. The 11.17am Chiltern Railways non-stop train from West Ealing to West Ruislip runs only on Wednesdays, with no return journey, to provide a bare minimum passenger service over a short section of track known as the Acton to Northolt Line."

So another "parly" train appears to be heading for extinction from the December timetable change, being the last vestige of the service that once ran from Paddington to join the Chiltern Main Line.

It seems to me unlikely that the government will be wanting to allocate Parliamentary time to changing legislative requirements that give rise to such 'ghost trains'. IIUC services have been removed by just having no trains call there (eg Wedgwood?). Of course this government, as so many, has stated intentions of 'removing red tape', though the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report once issued is likely to give pause to too much de-regulation.

Who will/ should decide such things? Who runs the railway- government/ 'the railway'/ operators/ users/ the public/ ...

 

[SargeNpton]

It seems to me unlikely that the government will be wanting to allocate Parliamentary time to changing legislative requirements that give rise to such 'ghost trains'. IIUC services have been removed by just having no trains call there (eg Wedgwood?). Of course this government, as so many, has stated intentions of 'removing red tape', though the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report once issued is likely to give pause to too much de-regulation.

Who will/ should decide such things? Who runs the railway- government/ 'the railway'/ operators/ users/ the public/ ...

Wedgwood and Barlaston are not closed, with the full range of rail tickets still available from and to them. However, no trains call at those stations, with the tickets being accepted on designated local bus services as a permanent rail-replacement.

 

[Djgr]

Is there anything actually stopping the TOC (assuming it is the TOC-the labyrinthine post-privatisation rail industry confuses me (and all?)) going through the appropriate legal requirements for closure?

 

[zwk500]

Is there anything actually stopping the TOC (assuming it is the TOC-the labyrinthine post-privatisation rail industry confuses me (and all?)) going through the appropriate legal requirements for closure?

Yes, other operators use the tracks. GWR are still running West Ealing-Greenford and IIRC there's a domestic waste flow from Park Royal to Calvert. Not sure if any freight uses the Greenford-West Ruislip direct curve but it isn't worth closing it. At the very least West Coast and LSL would object as they use the Greenford triangle to turn their locos occassionally.

 

[lawried123]

Yes, other operators use the tracks. GWR are still running West Ealing-Greenford and IIRC there's a domestic waste flow from Park Royal to Calvert. Not sure if any freight uses the Greenford-West Ruislip direct curve but it isn't worth closing it. At the very least West Coast and LSL would object as they use the Greenford triangle to turn their locos occassionally.

I hope no one else went to do it today as it didn't run. Apparently the train ran from Marylebone to West Ruislip then simply returned direct to Marylebone. A friend who went to do it wasted his time.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, other operators use the tracks. GWR are still running West Ealing-Greenford and IIRC there's a domestic waste flow from Park Royal to Calvert. Not sure if any freight uses the Greenford-West Ruislip direct curve but it isn't worth closing it. At the very least West Coast and LSL would object as they use the Greenford triangle to turn their locos occassionally.

The TOC would only apply to cease running their own passenger service.

Closing a section of line to all traffic would be a completely different matter, as I tried to highlight this morning.

 

[The exile]

The TOC would only apply to cease running their own passenger service.

Closing a section of line to all traffic would be a completely different matter, as I tried to highlight this morning.

Do closure procedures not apply only to passenger services?

 

[Bald Rick]

It seems to me unlikely that the government will be wanting to allocate Parliamentary time to changing legislative requirements that give rise to such 'ghost trains'.

Oh it won’t happen as stand alone legislation, it will be wrapped up with something else Bigger.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do closure procedures not apply only to passenger services?

The DfT “closures guidance” of 2006, which is summarising the Railway Act 2005, is written to allow for any or all of train service removal, station closure or whole line closure. Obviously the third includes the others.

 

[miklcct]

the connecting line from the NLL to the ECML are two such examples.

What passenger trains use this line on diversion?

 

[Kite159]

Another little benefit for the Chiltern point of view is that it frees up a guard, who could be used on more important services.

 

[Horizon22]

The TOC would only apply to cease running their own passenger service.

Closing a section of line to all traffic would be a completely different matter, as I tried to highlight this morning.

And is not even at risk, due to the freight that uses the line.

 

[Watershed]

Another little benefit for the Chiltern point of view is that it frees up a guard, who could be used on more important services.

They actually used guard-trained RPIs on this one - they don't work any other services AFAIK so it may just be a case of them losing their competencies.

 

[800002]

I hope no one else went to do it today as it didn't run. Apparently the train ran from Marylebone to West Ruislip then simply returned direct to Marylebone. A friend who went to do it wasted his time.

It was due to a late running fright train and need to allow it to run unhindered. They would have held each other up even further awaiting line clearance so that's why that happened.

They actually used guard-trained RPIs on this one - they don't work any other services AFAIK so it may just be a case of them losing their competencies.

And yes, I believe that is the case. The competency held by just a few to crew it to West Ealing, so that will go anyway.

Do closure procedures not apply only to passenger services?

As far as closing the line goes, my understanding is that the requirement is there to keep the stretch of line north of greenford in passenger service. Doesn't matter what else runs, but passenger services form part of the line usage and that is what's required for a line to be maintained 'for passenger use'.