Study could look into reopening Bourne End to Wycombe train line

[Techniquest]

Funnily enough when I was festering at Bourne End on Monday waiting for the train back to Furze Platt, I was wondering what things would be like if trains carried on to High Wycombe. No surprise, the first thing that would take some doing to overcome is that road right next to the buffers.

Granted, it was a Bank Holiday Monday, so could have been a reason for lower passenger numbers but apart from Maidenhead there were few passengers at any of the other stations. It does make you wonder how much busier the Marlow branch is during the day off-peak, I'd image it's pretty busy during the peak periods though.

As for the buses to/from Wycombe, well they were empty for the handful I saw running about. Again, since it was a Bank Holiday Monday, it's reasonable to assume that made a difference to what it would be like normally.

Funnily enough, I always thought Wycombe to Bourne End was quite some way, certainly more than 9km.

I would put serious doubt on the railway ever returning to Bourne End from the Wycombe direction, if it happens I'll not be around to see it I suspect.

 

[RPM]

I can't see a Marlow to Henley rail link ever being possible. The riverside environment around there is just too sensitive for such major development and local residents are rich and influential. The best that can be hoped for is to improve other services at both Marlow and Henley. Henley could become an extension of Crossrail, with the Maidenhead terminators being extended there. The Henley branch station platforms could all be extended fairly easily, and there should be space on this former double track line to install a passing loop if required, or probably more usefully, a second platform for more robust turn-backs at Henley.

The Bourne End - High Wycombe link could perhaps be more easily be reinstated on a new alignment as shown here:

http://www.townend.me/files/bourne-end.pdf

. . . this proposal reuses the first 1 km beyond Bourne End, but then diverges onto a new alignment for approximately 4km, joining the Chiltern Main Line between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, near Loudwater.

The new route could be used by local trains, an extension of the existing Maidenhead – Bourne End branch shuttle to High Wycombe, or could become part of a longer and more useful service between Milton Keynes, with its range of North Western and Midlands connections, and Heathrow Airport.

With the addition of an extra junction leg, the Marlow Chord facing London, there is an opportunity to introduce a new through London service for Marlow, an alternative terminal for an expanded stopping services from Marylebone, say 2 out of 4 trains per hour each going to High Wycombe and Marlow.

Nicely presented, but never in a million years is that going to stand up to any sort of cost/benefit analysis

 

[A0]

When discussions on a car v. train discussion ensue where travel to work is involved, the following should be brought into the discussion:-
1)...The car will be used from the home directly to the place of employment. The train requires travel to a railway station then from a railway station to the place of employment.
2)...Many car drivers have company cars that are needed to perform their employment duties. Taxation can be levied upon such drivers.

It's not Taxation can be levied on company car drivers - it IS levied on company car drivers.

Company cars are a taxed as a Benefit in kind (BIK) and anyone on higher rate tax finds it virtually impossible to get a family car without incurring AT LEAST £ 1,000 / pa tax bill.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's not Taxation can be levied on company car drivers - it IS levied on company car drivers.

I am finding it somewhat difficult to comprehend what you state above, as both parts refer to company car drivers.

 

[corfield]

I've walked some of the route at the High Wycombe end, I cannot envisage the housing area that has been built on the alignment from the A40 to the Chiltern line being navigable at all, certainly not in some kind of "low cost, connector/feeder line scenario".

There are also more houses in the way at the southern end of the embankment in the Loudwater/High Wycombe area.

All this assumes the bay platform is vacant for more services.

I like the alternative route, but 2x tunnels and a viaduct seems hugely expensive for the route - and surely from Milton Keynes the proposed WCML / Crossrail is a far better option for routes to London/Heathrow. It also requires flat junctions at the CML end on what is a busy line these days.

Personally I can't see a market for rail along this route, locally it would be tiny - the Bourne End/Marlow branches only survive for the London commuter market and High Wycombe is already very well connected. Any other trip makes far more sense to do in a car point to point rather than spend as much time getting to/from the end stations as doing the entire thing since the distance is so small. Car ownership in the area has to be pretty high by any standards.

As above, regional rail through this seems implausible given not least the Bourne End to Maidenhead section and the need to fit it onto the CML as well.

All in all, nice but I think it's a complete non starter. Spend the money on improving the outer suburban services from High Wycombe-GX into MYB via loops/quad track to better split the CMLs fast/slow services.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Granted, it was a Bank Holiday Monday, so could have been a reason for lower passenger numbers but apart from Maidenhead there were few passengers at any of the other stations. It does make you wonder how much busier the Marlow branch is during the day off-peak, I'd image it's pretty busy during the peak periods though.

That's probably not too surprising given the low population served by the current line at its northern end. I would imagine it could be a different story if the line ran through to High Wycombe, since it would then be connecting two (and, indirectly, several more) much larger population centres.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I like the alternative route, but 2x tunnels and a viaduct seems hugely expensive for the route - and surely from Milton Keynes the proposed WCML / Crossrail is a far better option for routes to London/Heathrow. It also requires flat junctions at the CML end on what is a busy line these days.

I agree, it does look quite expensive, and you probably would need grade separation at the CML junctions. I wonder if a slightly cheaper alternative would be to leave out the Bourne End-London part of the triangular junction, and just run Marlow trains as a shuttle to High Wycombe.

Personally I can't see a market for rail along this route, locally it would be tiny - the Bourne End/Marlow branches only survive for the London commuter market and High Wycombe is already very well connected. Any other trip makes far more sense to do in a car point to point rather than spend as much time getting to/from the end stations as doing the entire thing since the distance is so small. Car ownership in the area has to be pretty high by any standards.

Not sure I'd agree with that. High Wycombe is only well connected if you're travelling broadly East-West - ie. to London, or towards Princes Risborough/Birmingham etc. If you want to head south-ish -including to Maidenhead, Slough, Heathrow Airport or Reading, there's basically zero connectivity by rail (without going into London). Given the size and proximity of those communities, that does seem a little absurd. It seems implausible that all those destinations wouldn't between them provide significant traffic.

All in all, nice but I think it's a complete non starter. Spend the money on improving the outer suburban services from High Wycombe-GX into MYB via loops/quad track to better split the CMLs fast/slow services.

I think that is probably a first priority for that area.

 

[Tobbes]

The difference could be WRaTH - direct services from the Chiltern towns and potentially Birmingham via an electrified CML to Heathrow would be very attractive.

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi,
The High Wycombe end does seem rather well developed from when I've been over that way. As mentioned above, it doesn't seem like a "low cost" option to punch it's way back through on the old alignment.

Looking at the local maps, near Loudwater there's a gap in the general development. It's mainly occupied by junction 3 of the M40 and a few warehouses. If you look at the vertical heights of the land , it may be possible to cross the valley (and the M40) with a new viaduct about 500m long.
To connect with the existing Chiltern line and the old route to Bourne End would probably require a sweeping "S" curve which may be the fatal flaw in this plan...

OK, that's not going to be cheap in itself but should be cheaper than reinstatement of the old route or tunnelling a new alignment to the east. There would need to be minimal demolition and nearly all of the property would be business / warehousing who I have always found far more amenable to doing a deal to leave ("I'll just keep counting out those £50 notes till you say stop" )

At Bourne End you'd never get away with introducing new level crossings. I guess the easiest way forward would be to elevate the new railway and lower the roads. Not particularly cheap but probably easier and less costly than several new road bridges in a built up area.

Of course, the business case is far from proven about any of this but I do agree that WRaTH will be a significant factor rather than just considering High Wycombe to Maidenhead traffic.

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[mr_jrt]

The difference could be WRaTH - direct services from the Chiltern towns and potentially Birmingham via an electrified CML to Heathrow would be very attractive.

If they don't stop at the stations (meaning the short platforms are irrelevant), then they could do that already via the Greenford loop. You would need to wire it to get all the way to Heathrow though due to the tunnels, but that would be much cheaper.

 

[Tobbes]

Fair enough, I thought that it could be quicker via this route and diverging at HW would also remove LHR trains from what I understood to be quite congested lines closer in on CML.

Out of interest, which would be faster from HW - LHR? Anyone able to approximately work it out?

Cheers,

Toby

 

[bangor-toad]

If they don't stop at the stations (meaning the short platforms are irrelevant), then they could do that already via the Greenford loop....

Hi there,
If I've got my geography right, the challenge to running Chiltern line - Greenford - Heathrow is that it would require running along the GWML from Hanwell to Airport junction.
As far as I know this is going to be a really busy section and there may not be paths available for such a short section.

If WRaTH is built as I remember the plans then a route from the Chiltern line through Bourne End would join the GWML at Maidenhead and then leave again near Slough to access Heathrow.
This section of the GWML will still be really busy but won't have the London - Heathrow services. Hence I'd guess that paths could be easier to find to the west of Heathrow than to the east.

This might be a positive reason for the re-opened link. Of course, I have no idea what a real business case would look like but it might be a consideration.

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[swt_passenger]

Hi there,
If I've got my geography right, the challenge to running Chiltern line - Greenford - Heathrow is that it would require running along the GWML from Hanwell to Airport junction.

You're quite right. Many of us are already aware that to allow for the intended Crossrail timetabling, the Greenford service is being curtailed to run into a re-opened bay at West Ealing. This is being specifically done to remove the conflicting crossing moves onto the branch off the down relief.

Running the other way off the Greenford branch would produce similar conflicting moves but in the opposite direction - onto the down relief - so why would these possibly be OK when the existing moves aren't?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do not ask for money-no-object "flights of fancy" rail reinstatement routes, as a Treasury refusal often offends...:roll:

I see that matters such as the bridging of the M40 and the electrification of the Greenford loop and onwards to Heathrow Airport are seen as something that will cause no problems, financially or aesthetically, on the project costing spreadsheet. A reading of this thread would see that a certain George Hudson of York today would find this a project in which he could draw up his line prospectus and would have people queueing up to subscribe their vast fortunes to finance it

Excuse me, but I must now visit my underground vaults to see if I have enough in my gold reserves to donate to the cost of this exciting new project....unless my wife has changed the access code again...

 

[L&Y Robert]

Another way Chiltern could get into Paddington, what?

 

[Buttsy]

The former course of the Bourne End - High Wycombe line had a single track 'tunnel' built into the M40 on the latter's construction as, at the time of completion of J2 -J4 in 1969, the line hadn't closed (1970). There would be no need for a new crossing of the M40 if the old trackbed were used around here.

 

[34D]

The former course of the Bourne End - High Wycombe line had a single track 'tunnel' built into the M40 on the latter's construction as, at the time of completion of J2 -J4 in 1969, the line hadn't closed (1970). There would be no need for a new crossing of the M40 if the old trackbed were used around here.

Did that survive the widening of around 15 years ago though?

 

[Buttsy]

Did that survive the widening of around 15 years ago though?

The widening went up to J3 from J1a, the line passed under the M40 just to the west of J3, so it wasn't part of the widening scheme that came to fruition. The original scheme was to widen to J4, which would have affected the 'tunnel'.

 

[steevp]

Did that survive the widening of around 15 years ago though?

By coincidence this pic was on the excellent railbrit website:

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete.php?id=47307