Additional Tracks for the Chiltern Main Line (and other possible improvement work)

[Esker-pades]

The title says it all really.

With an assymetric timetable (certainly in terms of stopping pattern), the Chiltern Main Line really needs new tracks in order to run a more frequent service, certainly for the commuter stations.

Generally, I'm assuming that all additional tracks would be within the current railway boundaries, without the requirement to purchase additional land.

 

[option]

Lapworth-Tyseley used to be 4track.
Leamington-Warwick Parkway, the stations & bridges are all 2track. There is a stretch of 3track east of Hatton. Might be able to squeeze in a 3rd track Lapworth-Hatton.

 

[6Gman]

The title says it all really.

With an assymetric timetable (certainly in terms of stopping pattern), the Chiltern Main Line really needs new tracks in order to run a more frequent service, certainly for the commuter stations.

Generally, I'm assuming that all additional tracks would be within the current railway boundaries, without the requirement to purchase additional land.

That's rather a bold assumption isn't it?

 

[Train Maniac]

Well, The Chiltern Main Line certainly had 4 track passing loops at pretty much all stations so its not impossible. In an ideal world it would be nice to straighten out the squiggle that is High Wycombe railway station, but that would be EXPENSIVE!

Birmingham Snow Hill is definitely in need of tearing down and starting again, but i think that is covered underneath the HS2 interchange work. Third place that really needs sorting out is Marylebone with the 2 track tunnel approach. Not entirely sure how one would go about this as Metropolitan and Jubilee Lines take up any spare space for 4 tracking here. Maybe divert all express trains to Old Oak Common and leave Marylebone as purely local (or vice versa?)

 

[option]

Well, The Chiltern Main Line certainly had 4 track passing loops at pretty much all stations so its not impossible. In an ideal world it would be nice to straighten out the squiggle that is High Wycombe railway station, but that would be EXPENSIVE!

Birmingham Snow Hill is definitely in need of tearing down and starting again, but i think that is covered underneath the HS2 interchange work. Third place that really needs sorting out is Marylebone with the 2 track tunnel approach. Not entirely sure how one would go about this as Metropolitan and Jubilee Lines take up any spare space for 4 tracking here. Maybe divert all express trains to Old Oak Common and leave Marylebone as purely local (or vice versa?)

East of Amersham Hill is railway land, stuff west of it isn't much & looks pretty tatty on streetview.
The squiggle north of there would need a new viaduct.

Straightening the line at Loudwater would probably be worth doing, just farmland on that section currently.

Princes Risborough south to where the line parallels West Wycombe Rd would be easy to 4 track.

 

[Esker-pades]

That's rather a bold assumption isn't it?

Not really. As I understand, some stations used to have more tracks through them (examples: Wembley Stadium and Beaconsfield). I'd rather people stated if the additional tracks were outside current boundaries, as that would help understand how feasible the proposals would be.

 

[Train Maniac]

Might be of some use

 

[The Planner]

Well, The Chiltern Main Line certainly had 4 track passing loops at pretty much all stations so its not impossible. In an ideal world it would be nice to straighten out the squiggle that is High Wycombe railway station, but that would be EXPENSIVE!

Birmingham Snow Hill is definitely in need of tearing down and starting again, but i think that is covered underneath the HS2 interchange work. Third place that really needs sorting out is Marylebone with the 2 track tunnel approach. Not entirely sure how one would go about this as Metropolitan and Jubilee Lines take up any spare space for 4 tracking here. Maybe divert all express trains to Old Oak Common and leave Marylebone as purely local (or vice versa?)

Snow Hill? That is nothing to do with HS2 and the plan is still to bring the 4th platform back now the tram has moved. The long term plan is to send trains to OOC.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I'm not persuaded there's any need to 4 track the Chiltern Main Line, least of all to help serve commuters at the London end. Chiltern have made it clear they have little interest in London local traffic. (South Ruislip to Northolt Park? You have to travel wrong direction to West Ruislip to catch a train stopping at Northolt Park!) In addition, Chiltern trains are two, three, occasionally four coaches long. Any increase in patronage can be catered for by longer trains with some platform rebuilding at Marylebone.

There is however scope for 4 tracking parts of the route. From Northolt Junction to just north of West Ruislip Station used to be 4 track, and space for the disused and semi-disused loops at Wembley Stadium, Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and High Wycombe is still in railway possession. Where the old Ashendon Junction used to be, the up and down lines separate and the land between them could facilitate 4 tracking. As has already been mentioned, a similar situation occurs south of Princes Risborough. The area around Banbury used to have enough spare land for 4 tracking but part of it may have been taken up by Chiltern's new train care facility.

 

[Esker-pades]

I'm not persuaded there's any need to 4 track the Chiltern Main Line, least of all to help serve commuters at the London end. Chiltern have made it clear they have little interest in London local traffic. (South Ruislip to Northolt Park? You have to travel wrong direction to West Ruislip to catch a train stopping at Northolt Park!) In addition, Chiltern trains are two, three, occasionally four coaches long. Any increase in patronage can be catered for by longer trains with some platform rebuilding at Marylebone.

Problems:

1. Because of the lack of four tracking on the Chiltern Main Line, Chiltern Railways have had to choose between catering for London and Buckinghamshire commuters, or long-distance traffice. They have chosen the latter. If more stations can be four tracked so that faster trains can overtake stopping services, the railway can cater for both. Those very weird and asymmetrical stopping patterns can be done away with.

2. The train length thing has been done to death, mostly in the HS2 thread. Esentially, adding more coaches will only give a finite increase in capacity. Yes, Chiltern services should be longer, but some are already. I have been on 8 car Chiltern services, just as I have also been on 2 car services. Increasing the train length wouldn't help with the commuter traffic situation that you described earlier.

3. As for the re-modelling of Marylebone: one is very constrained by the 2 track tunnel just north of the station. There is very little room to work with.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would have thought that the thing that the Chiltern Mainline is now crying out isn't more track but electrification...

 

[Esker-pades]

I would have thought that the thing that the Chiltern Mainline is now crying out isn't more track but electrification...

Both.

Electric trains can accelerate faster, so the stopping services could stop at a few more places. But, that would only address current demand with no room for additional growth. Increasing train length would cope for a few years, but, as we've seen before with Chiltern upgrades, they may well become victims of their own success. The additional capacity that the Electrostars provided on the GWML didn't last long before they were rammed (as an example).

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Problems:

1. Because of the lack of four tracking on the Chiltern Main Line, Chiltern Railways have had to choose between catering for London and Buckinghamshire commuters, or long-distance traffice. They have chosen the latter. If more stations can be four tracked so that faster trains can overtake stopping services, the railway can cater for both. Those very weird and asymmetrical stopping patterns can be done away with.

2. The train length thing has been done to death, mostly in the HS2 thread. Esentially, adding more coaches will only give a finite increase in capacity. Yes, Chiltern services should be longer, but some are already. I have been on 8 car Chiltern services, just as I have also been on 2 car services. Increasing the train length wouldn't help with the commuter traffic situation that you described earlier.

3. As for the re-modelling of Marylebone: one is very constrained by the 2 track tunnel just north of the station. There is very little room to work with.

I disagree. There is no evidence that Chiltern has been forced to choose between the two markets. Longer trains would have enabled them to cater for both, if Chiltern believed both markets were worth going for. The longer trains issue has not been done to death! It is central to this whole issue and hasn't been thrashed out nearly enough! Marylebone Station is hundreds of yards away from St. John's Wood Tunnel and is not constrained by it. There are effectively only two running lines between them although there is space for six.

 

[Esker-pades]

I disagree. There is no evidence that Chiltern has been forced to choose between the two markets. Longer trains would have enabled them to cater for both, if Chiltern believed both markets were worth going for. The longer trains issue has not been done to death! It is central to whole issue and hasn't been trashed out nearly enough! Marylebone Station is hundreds of yards away from St. John's Wood Tunnel and is not constrained by it. There are effectively only two running lines between them although there is space for six.

Longer trains only deal with capacity problems for a few years. Those trains which are already 8 coaches don't deal with any capacity increase. Associate infrastructure work would be required to accommodate longer trains (for example, the bay platform at High Wycombe). Read the HS2 thread and you'll see why I'm bored of explaining this.

Longer trains still won't deal with scenario that you put forward in your original comment because stopping patterns will remain unchanged.

 

[option]

I would have thought that the thing that the Chiltern Mainline is now crying out isn't more track but electrification...

Which when done should be done in such a way that it doesn't prevent easy 4-tracking, or is done at the same time.
eg. Kidderminster/Stourbridge-Leamington & Stratford should be electrified, but Moor St southwards could be easily 4-track to Lapworth.

 

[The Planner]

I disagree. There is no evidence that Chiltern has been forced to choose between the two markets. Longer trains would have enabled them to cater for both, if Chiltern believed both markets were worth going for. The longer trains issue has not been done to death! It is central to whole issue and hasn't been trashed out nearly enough! Marylebone Station is hundreds of yards away from St. John's Wood Tunnel and is not constrained by it. There are effectively only two running lines between them although there is space for six.

What would those 6 deliver? not a lot, if anything, as you are still flighting trains down a two track railway at no less than 3 minutes apart.

 

[Train Maniac]

Snow Hill? That is nothing to do with HS2 and the plan is still to bring the 4th platform back now the tram has moved. The long term plan is to send trains to OOC.

Ah. Must of been Moor Street

 

[Railwaysceptic]

What would those 6 deliver? not a lot, if anything, as you are still flighting trains down a two track railway at no less than 3 minutes apart.

You've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting the present situation is a problem. I stating the opposite; that they don't need to use all the potential running line capacity at their disposal.

 

[Esker-pades]

You've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting the present situation is a problem. I stating the opposite; that they don't need to use all the potential running line capacity at their disposal.

So, you'd reduce the number of trains which run?

Even with lengthening other trains, that would reduce capacity. Especially if you take out the services which also happen to be the only ones which stop at, for example, Denham Golf Club in the hour.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Longer trains only deal with capacity problems for a few years. Those trains which are already 8 coaches don't deal with any capacity increase. Associate infrastructure work would be required to accommodate longer trains (for example, the bay platform at High Wycombe). Read the HS2 thread and you'll see why I'm bored of explaining this.

Longer trains still won't deal with scenario that you put forward in your original comment because stopping patterns will remain unchanged.

You're bored. Fine. You don't think there's any long term gain from longer trains. Chiltern Trains obviously disagree because, as you have pointed out, they do run longer trains when they deem it necessary. I suggest you post your theory in the various threads about capacity problems at Leeds Station and on the Hope Valley, Trans Pennine, Settle & Carlisle Lines and see what response you get. You won't be bored.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

So, you'd reduce the number of trains which run?

Even with lengthening other trains, that would reduce capacity. Especially if you take out the services which also happen to be the only ones which stop at, for example, Denham Golf Club in the hour.

I don't know how you've managed to conclude that I'm suggesting reducing the number of trains.

 

[Esker-pades]

You're bored. Fine. You don't think there's any long term gain from longer trains. Chiltern Trains obviously disagree because, as you have pointed out, they do run longer trains when they deem it necessary.

Running additional carriages when there is an event at Wembley or similar is not a long term solution.

I suggest you post your theory in the various threads about capacity problems at Leeds Station and on the Hope Valley, Trans Pennine, Settle & Carlisle Lines and see what response you get. You won't be bored.

I'm not saying don't lengthen trains, I'm saying don't just lengthen trains. Lengthen trains and do infrastructure work so that there is spare capacity for the long term.

I don't know how you've managed to conclude that I'm suggesting reducing the number of trains.

From this:

You've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting the present situation is a problem. I stating the opposite; that they don't need to use all the potential running line capacity at their disposal.

My emphasis.
As Chiltern currently do use all potential running line capacity (there is no more space for additional trains on the southern section of the main line*), that means you are proposing reducing the number of trains.

EDIT: *Ruislip to Princes Risborough section. It may be possible to get a limited-stop Ruislip shuttle in the very southern end.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Running additional carriages when there is an event at Wembley or similar is not a long term solution.


I'm not saying don't lengthen trains, I'm saying don't just lengthen trains. Lengthen trains and do infrastructure work so that there is spare capacity for the long term.


From this:

My emphasis.
As Chiltern currently do use all potential running line capacity (there is no more space for additional trains on the southern section of the main line*), that means you are proposing reducing the number of trains.

EDIT: *Ruislip to Princes Risborough section. It may be possible to get a limited-stop Ruislip shuttle in the very southern end.

I think you'd better try to understand my posts before replying to them.

1) You suggested that the proximity of St. John's Wood Tunnel to Marylebone Station would somehow impede any attempt to lengthen the platforms.
2) I pointed out that the distance between them was several hundreds of yards. Because platform lengthening to beyond Rossmore Road would necessitate some alteration to the track layout at the "throat", I also pointed out that there was room for additional running lines between the station and the tunnel.
3) This was questioned and my response emphasised that I didn't think they needed all the potential.
4) You somehow misinterpreted this and concluded I was referring to the whole Chiltern Main Line.

 

[Esker-pades]

I think you'd better try to understand my posts before replying to them.

1) You suggested that the proximity of St. John's Wood Tunnel to Marylebone Station would somehow impede any attempt to lengthen the platforms.
2) I pointed out that the distance between them was several hundreds of yards. Because platform lengthening to beyond Rossmore Road would necessitate some alteration to the track layout at the "throat", I also pointed out that there was room for additional running lines between the station and the tunnel.
3) This was questioned and my response emphasised that I didn't think they needed all the potential.
4) You somehow misinterpreted this and concluded I was referring to the whole Chiltern Main Line.

Between 2 and 3 there was this:
"What would those 6 deliver? not a lot, if anything, as you are still flighting trains down a two track railway at no less than 3 minutes apart." from another user. Your response (3) was to that, hence the confusion.
Point 2 also dealt with multiple things, so it was not clear which part of that you were referring to a few replies down the line.

Rather than assuming that the other poster is incapable of understanding what has been written, it would be more helpful to apreciate that, when dealing with replies to replies to replies to replies of 2-3 people, any part of any of the responses which are not completely specific can lead to misunderstanding later on. I will happily continue to discuss the subject, but not if it has been decided that I am somehow unable to comprehend text.

 

[Samuel88]

How about just closing both of the Sudbury stations, Northolt Park and either South or West Ruislip stations? There are plenty of alternative travel options, train services are sparse and hardly anyone uses them.

 

[Esker-pades]

How about just closing both of the Sudbury stations, Northolt Park and either South or West Ruislip stations? There are plenty of alternative travel options, train services are sparse and hardly anyone uses them.

The question is, why are these stations poorly used? Is it because they don't serve anything, or is it because they are poorly served? Given the patronage that West Ruislip, South Ruislip and others get from other modes of transport in the area, I suggest the latter. IE: The answer is to increase the service so that people use them, not shut them altogether. The Central Line is much slower than Chiltern for getting into Central London, ditto with the Piccadilly Line from Sudbury, so if Chiltern was able to serve the stations more frequently, more people would use them.

 

[Samuel88]

The question is, why are these stations poorly used? Is it because they don't serve anything, or is it because they are poorly served? Given the patronage that West Ruislip, South Ruislip and others get from other modes of transport in the area, I suggest the latter. IE: The answer is to increase the service so that people use them, not shut them altogether. The Central Line is much slower than Chiltern for getting into Central London, ditto with the Piccadilly Line from Sudbury, so if Chiltern was able to serve the stations more frequently, more people would use them.

Is Chiltern really much faster into central London though? Half the time the Gerrards Cross stoppers hang around West Ruislip station for up to 20 minutes waiting for a clear run into Marylebone. Close the stations where the line can't be 4 tracked and help speed up services to the Commuter belt in Buckinghamshire.

 

[Esker-pades]

Is Chiltern really much faster into central London though? Half the time the Gerrards Cross stoppers hang around West Ruislip station for up to 20 minutes waiting for a clear run into Marylebone. Close the stations where the line can't be 4 tracked and help speed up services to the Commuter belt in Buckinghamshire.

Yes. Yes it is.
West Ruislip to Marble Arch (Central Line): 35 minutes
West Ruislip to Marylebone (Chiltern): 25 minutes
Sudbury Hill to Hyde Park Corner (Piccadilly Line): 35 minutes
Sudbury Hill Harrow to Marylebone (Chiltern): 16 minutes


The reason they hang around there is because of a lack of capacity, not because it is mandated that Chiltern services have to dwell for 20 minutes at West Ruislip. If the railway between South and West Ruislip was 4 track, the stopping services wouldn't need to sit and wait in a loop, instead they could keep moving and serve both Ruislip stations.

I've also done a quick check, and most trains have a dwell of 6 minutes (IE: one path). Some have a dwell of up to 10 minutes, but that's only at peak time.

 

[option]

The 2-track towards Marylebone is the issue surely?
Apparently some provision was made for 4-tracking by putting in an additional tunnel under Lords, but north of there would need new tunnels
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101629-tunnels-into-marylebone/

 

[BanburyBlue]

The 2-track towards Marylebone is the issue surely?
Apparently some provision was made for 4-tracking by putting in an additional tunnel under Lords, but north of there would need new tunnels
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/101629-tunnels-into-marylebone/

I was just going to say that. You can see the bricked up tunnel mouths, so were the tunnels ever bored?