The case for electrifying the Chiltern mainline

[BrianW]

Well in my ideal world we would be closing both Paddington and Marylebone, and demolishing most of Somers Town to concentrate them all onto the Euston King's Pancreas complex.

Yeah ... that's the kind of vision that's been lacking for some time.
A kind of Hauptbahnhof?
I hesitate to think the number of platforms required, but can see the possibilities realised by only two-track Thameslink.
A pity about the British Library, Crick Centre etc and any residual residents ... but thinking 'omelette'. Our so-called 'planning' has been a constraint on development for years, as HS2, Heathrow, HS1 .... testify
Something more like Stratford Olympic Park, and Old Oak?
Maybe a real Birmingham Grand Central mega-interchange rather than the rebadged New Street!
Am I right to think that 'through lines' have greater capacity than terminating?
I'm presuming there's a team somewhere that considers such ideas for a job. I seem to recall some kind of formula for calculating flows between centres of this or that size and distance.
I imagine something of that kind informed thinking on e.g Crossrail2 rather than just a 'rehash' of the pre-war Ealing to Southend trains.
Stopping before my head explodes.
Great thread.

 

[si404]

The best option would be to give the Met fasts to Chiltern and cutback/widen the Met to deconflict.

How do you get an additional 4tph (6tph peak) into Marylebone? OOC only removes 2tph, if that...

(same thing the other way - the Met doesn't have capacity for takeover of Aylesbury via Am - this is an issue with straight electrification)

I get Amersham etc want the direct Met services but that is where an interchange is needed.

Amersham would be very happy with just Chiltern if they:
1) keep the cheap fares
2) keep the capacity provided at peak.

But even if Chiltern can do 1), 2) is be impossible. And is really important - it needs to be increased so a decrease would be terrible. TfL reckon on high levels of standing leaving Amersham in the morning here and it will be made worse if the Mayor's strategy gets implemented. NR (cf the Route study below, p30) has 2013 seat utilisation of over 100% south of Chalfont, which is Gt Missenden in 2023, and in 2043 it's over 140% am peak in from Missenden.

What would provide these services? The High Wycombe stoppers? Bicester and beyond express? Or MK via Aylesbury? The latter would be interesting as it opens a lot of connections up.

West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study has (p48) a 2043 Unconstrained timetable with hourly trains from OOC to: Banbury, MK via Aylesbury, High Wycombe, and Gerrards Cross.

I'm sure I've seen other plans, which likewise focus on diverting mid-distance trains while also running short distance trains too.

 

[cle]

Aylesbury services could probably run at 2tph, with an additional 2tph to each of Amersham and Chesham. The key would be lengths, 8 cars for everything.

Without a West Hampstead solution (cannot see happening) - a Met interchange would be best at Harrow, or even a new station at Neasden, with Jubilee and the future Overground route on offer too. Or just additional platforms at Wembley Park.

In any case, Marylebone would struggle - but the Bakerloo has some capacity, and post-Crossrail, should have some more.

An ideal solution has to be Crossrail-style. Something which can integrate the Euston WCML Slows, the DC and this Aylesbury route (via one major piece of crayoning work in Northwick Park) to add those routes up to a viable frequency to match the Fenchurch Street or Windsor lines.

 

[corfield]

The NR route summary suggests it is 4 “additional” tph.


Current published plans for EWR have removed the possibility of through trains from Milton Keynes across Aylesbury. Obviously that can change in the long term but it’s not something you should be expecting.

Interesting link, but that is a great shame, EWR seems to continually be de-scoped. The Princes Risborough to Aylesbury would need significant work to re-double looking at the current alignment, positioning of signalling, number and standard of crossings (lots of footpaths) as would the line north of Aylesbury itself - hence I guess why it is being pushed back a bit. I note they see electrification, presumably in the 2030s.

Where would the additional 4pth run to?

They refer to upgrading Marylebone - any details available?

Can't see the logic of the Oxford services running there, afterall Oxford has direct services through OOC into Paddington. Chiltern's USP is into Marylebone which is, well, different.

 

[si404]

Aylesbury services could probably run at 2tph, with an additional 2tph to each of Amersham and Chesham. The key would be lengths, 8 cars for everything.

That wouldn't be the end of the world, though still causes issues at peak times.

An S8 can hold 1000 at 4/m^2, whereas an 8-car Class 700 is only about 200 people more - despite being nearly 30m longer. At peak times even Chiltern aren't so terrible as to give Amersham a 2-car (holds 184), or even 3-car (276) - tending to give something a bit longer, meaning that this could be a small drop in capacity, despite said capacity being needed.

TfL reckons that in 20 years, trains leaving Amersham in the AM peak will be 4*S8 at >5/m^2 crowding, and whatever Chiltern offer at >4/m^2 crowding (NR suggest over 140% of seated capacity from Gt Missenden inwards at a similar future point). The National Infrastructure Committee suggest that Chiltern will be crush-loaded leaving Amersham in the AM in 2030 (though oddly that loads of people will get off at Chalfont & Latimer), and that both sets of trains will leave Rickmansworth with more than 3 standees per square metre. Thankfully Chesham trains will exist to allow Chalfont and Chorleywood passengers to board as otherwise they wouldn't! At Rickmansworth, hopefully this reshuffle that people keep planning has created a segregated Met route (Watford doesn't need more than 4tph, but Northwood definitely needs far more) into the station to allow people from there to be able to get on trains!

I guess one could run a peak shuttle Amersham - Harrow (even though the fabled TfL high-up who lives in Chesham credited by conspiracists as why through trains weren't abolished won't stand in the way in 20 years time as they will barely be able to stand, you aren't getting rid of Chesham through trains) where passengers can change to the full (in terms of frequency - there's loads of room in trains) Met services. However AFAICS, dual electrification would be a far easier barrier to overcome rather than trying to get the line only served by one of the two operators - who, working together can provide the capacity needed (even in the future there's scope for getting small capacity increases off of each that will plug the capacity gap, but definitely cannot do it alone without a giga project.

 

[RT4038]

Interesting link, but that is a great shame, EWR seems to continually be de-scoped. The Princes Risborough to Aylesbury would need significant work to re-double looking at the current alignment, positioning of signalling, number and standard of crossings (lots of footpaths) as would the line north of Aylesbury itself - hence I guess why it is being pushed back a bit. I note they see electrification, presumably in the 2030s.

Where would the additional 4pth run to?

They refer to upgrading Marylebone - any details available?

Can't see the logic of the Oxford services running there, afterall Oxford has direct services through OOC into Paddington. Chiltern's USP is into Marylebone which is, well, different.

The Princes Risborough-Aylesbury line cannot be re-doubled - it has never been double!

 

[Energy]

With the HS2 reconstruction, will their be any space at Euston at all?

Chiltern is more likely to move services to Paddington, to be honest moving Chiltern mainline services to Paddington would make a lot of sense as Marylebone is in comparison fairly isolated, it is only served by 1 tube line and only Chiltern are at that station.

 

[philthetube]

There is no need to dual electrify, virtually all Chiltern services stop at Harrow and Amersham so just switch over at each, happens now on the overground so no prob for new stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

Chiltern is more likely to move services to Paddington, to be honest moving Chiltern mainline services to Paddington would make a lot of sense as Marylebone is in comparison fairly isolated, it is only served by 1 tube line and only Chiltern are at that station.

Except the lines to Paddington are full...

Chiltern aren’t leaving Marylebone.

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

According to the Taxpayers Alliance in the summer of 2019, electrifying the Chiltern Lines was a "shovel ready project." Presumably that means they've already solved all the problems with tunnel clearance, immunisation alongside the LUL lines, got the budget and supply chain sorted, planned all the possessions, etc. etc. Though, I could easily believe the TPA were lying.

 

[cle]

Chiltern into Paddington is a non-starter. On a map it makes sense, but there are too many obstacles. And it is good to spread activity around, even though Marylebone is less than ideal for onward journeys.

London is too big to have the 'hauptbahnhof' type operation people fetishize on here, which works for neat, mono-centric medium-sized cities. We have multiple cores which in themselves are larger than the CBD's of most German cities. We're even going down this rabbit-hole by adding to KXSP or TCR in future Crossrails.

Look at NYC's problems where their lines are split between two main stations (not including WTC PATH as a rail terminus) - whereas Paris is like us. A comparable city in terms of metro size. With rail termini on the fringes, pointing in the right directions. And RER used for regional metro capacity, not for threading long distance services or replacing termini. Or Tokyo - again with multiple cores of activity.

 

[Bald Rick]

According to the Taxpayers Alliance in the summer of 2019, electrifying the Chiltern Lines was a "shovel ready project." Presumably that means they've already solved all the problems with tunnel clearance, immunisation alongside the LUL lines, got the budget and supply chain sorted, planned all the possessions, etc. etc. Though, I could easily believe the TPA were lying.

It’s not even designer’s pencil ready!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It’s not even designer’s pencil ready!

Crayon ready surely (for mapping diversions)

I recall a great deal of work was done for Crossrail 1 for 25kV to Aylesbury / Chesham. Part of the original cores scheme. In fact I walked sections of it some beautiful Summer Sunday mornings when there were engineering blocks on for track relaying. (I had full LT Track competencies in those days and we were accompanied by the relevant protection master etc) ....the 4 track section from Harrow North Junction to Rickmansworth was exceedingly tight for clearances for OLE gantries due to the post WW2 four tracking was squeezed into a fairly tight solum - not impossible , but challenging. We had a lot of grief from well heeled residents towards Chesham re the disfigurement of their environment by unsightly OLE. North of Amersham - a lot more straightforward.

Power supply feeds from the Grid were also relevant. This was around 1992 , so the latter might not be such an issue these days , but one lives in hope.

 

[Bletchleyite]

London is too big to have the 'hauptbahnhof' type operation people fetishize on here, which works for neat, mono-centric medium-sized cities.

I do agree with your point that a London Hbf is a non-starter, and that the Euston-St Pancras-Kings Cross group is as close as we are ever likely to get. However, Berlin is neither neat, nor mono-centric, nor medium-sized, and does have a Hbf, so I'm not clear that that is quite true.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I've been having read and it suggests the Bubble cars have served the branch, which would suggest it was ok for 20m units.

I can assure you that both 121 DMU sets , and (exotically) , a Southern Oxted unit have worked passenger services during Steam on the Met , on the Chesham - Chalfont shuttle. Slightly off topic as this is not the future clearly.

 

[Bald Rick]

I do agree with your point that a London Hbf is a non-starter, and that the Euston-St Pancras-Kings Cross group is as close as we are ever likely to get. However, Berlin is neither neat, nor mono-centric, nor medium-sized, and does have a Hbf, so I'm not clear that that is quite true.

Berlin also has several other stations where Intercity, Regional and commuter services call. So although it has a station named Hauptbahnhof, it is by no means the only main station. (Sudkreuz, Ostbahnhof, etc etc)

Multiple stations are needed in large cities to enable distribution of people to where they actually need to go. A Hbf for London is absolutely bonkers, on every level.

 

[si404]

According to the Taxpayers Alliance in the summer of 2019, electrifying the Chiltern Lines was a "shovel ready project." Presumably that means they've already solved all the problems with tunnel clearance, immunisation alongside the LUL lines, got the budget and supply chain sorted, planned all the possessions, etc. etc. Though, I could easily believe the TPA were lying.

Presumably one of the schemes that this massive pot of HS2 money (that doesn't exist without HS2) would be spent on, chosen - and lied about - because it's along the same axis as HS2.

 

[Meerkat]

If it wasn’t for the Jubilee line in the way I would have been suggesting the Met should go dual voltage....

 

[HSTEd]

Look at NYC's problems where their lines are split between two main stations (not including WTC PATH as a rail terminus) - whereas Paris is like us. A comparable city in terms of metro size. With rail termini on the fringes, pointing in the right directions. And RER used for regional metro capacity, not for threading long distance services or replacing termini. Or Tokyo - again with multiple cores of activity.

I'd argue that Paris Est/Nord and Austerlitz/Lyon (Bercy is strangely positioned) are analogous to the Euston King's Pancras complex.
So I'd say Paris basically has four station complexes (those two, Montparnasse and Sant Lazaire)
More than than one but much less than London has.

Multiple stations are needed in large cities to enable distribution of people to where they actually need to go. A Hbf for London is absolutely bonkers, on every level.

Of the four Berlin stations classified by DB in the top category (Hbf, Gesundbrunnen, Südkreuz and Ostbahnhof), a lot of them seem to feed lines into Hbf.
Ostbahnhof in particular.

Having on a Hbf doesnt mean trains only ever stop there, but it means that all trains do stop there.
We get OOC style hubs to help spread the load but still preserve maximum connectivity.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Except the lines to Paddington are full...

How much platform capacity at Paddington would be released once Crossrail is fully open? I suspect not enough, but it would be useful to know.

 

[cle]

I'd argue that Paris Est/Nord and Austerlitz/Lyon (Bercy is strangely positioned) are analogous to the Euston King's Pancras complex.
So I'd say Paris basically has four station complexes (those two, Montparnasse and Sant Lazaire)
More than than one but much less than London has.



Of the four Berlin stations classified by DB in the top category (Hbf, Gesundbrunnen, Südkreuz and Ostbahnhof), a lot of them seem to feed lines into Hbf.
Ostbahnhof in particular.

Having on a Hbf doesnt mean trains only ever stop there, but it means that all trains do stop there.
We get OOC style hubs to help spread the load but still preserve maximum connectivity.

Berlin was my tricky outlier, as it's a large city but with a medium-city economy, on a global level. And does have different stations. Hamburg is evolving too.

'Euston Kings Pancras' is not a complex and does not exist. Yes they are walkable, but Euston is apart from KXSP, and thankfully so. The SSL station at Euston/Square as part of HS2 will help delineate this further.

Paris has fewer, but it is smaller. It's still the most comparable. And they all function for longer distance journeys. Austerlitz/Lyon/Bercy again are three stations. And some have been removed through RER services (e.g. RER C and A) - in Paris, Fenchurch Street and Cannon Street would not exist.

 

[HSTEd]

'Euston Kings Pancras' is not a complex and does not exist. Yes they are walkable, but Euston is apart from KXSP, and thankfully so. The SSL station at Euston/Square as part of HS2 will help delineate this further.

Crossrail 2 is going to undo that, if it ever happens, though, with its shared KGX-SP and Euston station.

Austerlitz/Lyon/Bercy again are three stations. And some have been removed through RER services (e.g. RER C and A) - in Paris, Fenchurch Street and Cannon Street would not exist.

The distance between Austerlitz and Lyon is only about 540m, its not much longer than the length of the trains that call at those stations.

And Bercy just seems like a peculiar station.

One thing I am in awe of though is the shear amount of track right in the centre of Paris.
I don't think we'd have anything like that mass in London these days, it all would have been sold to developers.

 

[swt_passenger]

How much platform capacity at Paddington would be released once Crossrail is fully open? I suspect not enough, but it would be useful to know.

They are currently short of platforms at Paddington, which is why HEx had its timings altered to use only one platform. I’d expect when TfL Rail move out, then HEx will get another platform back.
Hence I suspect you’re looking at maybe one platform, and that is still fairly irrelevant to Chiltern, who’d have no practical route into Paddington anyway without a conflicting flat crossing at West Ealing (which is why the Greenford shuttle no longer normally runs through).

 

[MarkyT]

They are currently short of platforms at Paddington, which is why HEx had its timings altered to use only one platform. I’d expect when TfL Rail move out, then HEx will get another platform back.
Hence I suspect you’re looking at maybe one platform, and that is still fairly irrelevant to Chiltern, who’d have no practical route into Paddington anyway without a conflicting flat crossing at West Ealing (which is why the Greenford shuttle no longer normally runs through).

The WCML connection to Crossrail west of OOC envisaged a Grade separated junction and so it would be plausible for Chiltern services to use that design to join the reliefs. Alternatively to maintain separation a dedicated pair all the way into the terminus might be created on the north side. Unless you could find some way to remove residual Thames valley locals and Hex services from Paddington itself I can't see there ever being platform space. Perhaps an alternative might be a new small dedicated terminus at Westbourne Park with direct interchange to Circle and H&C and and potential for a much shorter cab/bus ride from there into central London than from OOC. Can't see that being of much additional benefit though once the Elizabeth line is properly up and running with all or at least most core services from the east going to or beyond OOC.

 

[duffield]

Presumably one of the schemes that this massive pot of HS2 money (that doesn't exist without HS2) would be spent on, chosen - and lied about - because it's along the same axis as HS2.

Yep. If HS2 had never been planned and Chiltern electrification was mooted, they'd be against it.

I think it's outrageous that anyone takes any notice of the TPA. They are a very small group of rich people who represent no-one but themselves and their mysterious financial backers who they refuse to identify, and who basically want massive cuts in all public spending to finance tax cuts which will benefit them (and presumably their shadowy backers).

 

[MarkyT]

Berlin was my tricky outlier, as it's a large city but with a medium-city economy, on a global level. And does have different stations.

Berlin had at least one other London/Paris style dead end terminus at one time, but after WW2 this found itself just inside the western sector while its approaches were in the east. With no practical purpose it was thus abandoned and demolished. The former approaches today form part of the north south line that goes through the Hauptbahnhof. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Anhalter_Bahnhof

'Euston Kings Pancras' is not a complex and does not exist. Yes they are walkable, but Euston is apart from KXSP, and thankfully so. The SSL station at Euston/Square as part of HS2 will help delineate this further.

Why thankfully? Do you not think the 'virtual complex' could benefit from significantly improved pedestrian connectivity to encourage that walkability. Using the Met for a transfer between Euston and St Pancras, even with the new Euston Square passageway, will still involve walking almost as far underground in total as taking the shortest plausible surface route. There are advantages in having a loosely linked set of closely located separate termini like this rather than a monolithic central station, mainly that a major emergency at one terminal need not shut down all long distance services radiating from the others, but that does not detract from the desirability of improving the pedestrian connectivity between them.

 

[MarkyT]

Yep. If HS2 had never been planned and Chiltern electrification was mooted, they'd be against it.

I think it's outrageous that anyone takes any notice of the TPA. They are a very small group of rich people who represent no-one but themselves and their mysterious financial backers who they refuse to identify, and who basically want massive cuts in all public spending to finance tax cuts which will benefit them (and presumably their shadowy backers).

Petroleum and Airline interests amongst other very rich funders allegedly, who wish to protect their obscene wealth and businesses by paying no tax and dismantling regulations, while pretending to be from the 'grass roots' of the broad populous. Known as 'Astroturfing'.

 

[D365]

If it wasn’t for the Jubilee line in the way I would have been suggesting the Met should go dual voltage....

Though I understand why TfL haven't bothered, it's a pity that there wasn't the foresight to make the S Stock dual voltage capable.

 

[cle]

Why thankfully? Do you not think the 'virtual complex' could benefit from significantly improved pedestrian connectivity to encourage that walkability. Using the Met for a transfer between Euston and St Pancras, even with the new Euston Square passageway, will still involve walking almost as far underground in total as taking the shortest plausible surface route. There are advantages in having a loosely linked set of closely located separate termini like this rather than a monolithic central station, mainly that a major emergency at one terminal need not shut down all long distance services radiating from the others, but that does not detract from the desirability of improving the pedestrian connectivity between them.

They're linked by a 5-10 minute walk, which is enough. And an emergency at one currently would not necessarily impact the others. Certainly, trains to Yorkshire and Scotland would be ok. Birmingham is supported by Marylebone.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think it's outrageous that anyone takes any notice of the TPA. They are a very small group of rich people who represent no-one but themselves —//

I would have to agree. They seem to be very anti- rail too.