The case for electrifying the Chiltern mainline

[Bald Rick]

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.

None. Because the relief lines are full to the junction with the Crossrail lines, and the main Lines’s are full too.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

It won’t. The Crossrail 2 station is Euston-St Pancras. Kings Cross isn’t involved. And it will take a lot longer to get from Euston to St Pancras via the Crossrail 2 station; it’s going to be underneath everything else so it’s a long way down on top of the walk distance at street level. Plus 2 gatelines.

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.

That’s not foresight, it’s madness. Why would you saddle a train with a load of extra weight and things that can go wrong for a capability it has zero chance of ever needing?

 

[corfield]

So what do we do with Chiltern?

DV/Battery stock on the Aylesbury line alongside Met as is, and pure AC (or a single DV fleet whatever is better) on the CML.

The 4tph into OOC as growth, rest to Marylebone.

Anything else? The strategy doc said upgrades to Marylebone - any ideas what?

 

[JonathanH]

So what do we do with Chiltern?

If you read comments elsewhere, the 165s are structurally sound for another ten years or so - the hope is that the Hybrid drive proposal will come good.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-angel-trains-hybrid-class-165-trial.169977/

That might give some time to work up a credible electrification proposal.

 

[cle]

The stock situation (combined with some furtive changes on EWR) do imply that a sparks decision might be made in the next few years, with deployment within 10. I hope so. There are many ways around we could do it, and how does it interface with GW / EWR / XC opportunities to take more onto the wires.

I'd think Oxford to Marylebone and OOC would cover off 6tph, which is a nice day one. Has to assume Didcot-Oxford is done, but the electric spine seems dead so I can't see Oxford-Coventry coming any time soon, which would include Chiltern's Banbury-Leamington stretch.

And actually Banbury - Didcot being wired might make GW run even more London-Banbury super fasts, which would be very competitive, even as a longer route. So Chiltern might prefer that to stay a country branch.

 

[t_star2001uk]

If you read comments elsewhere, the 165s are structurally sound for another ten years or so - the hope is that the Hybrid drive proposal will come good.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-angel-trains-hybrid-class-165-trial.169977/

That might give some time to work up a credible electrification proposal.

165004 has been sent to LORAM at Derby for conversion....

 

[corfield]

Hadn’t seen the Hybrid stuff, that is really interesting - if that comes off (affordable, reliable) then depending how it switches it changes a lot as you can now electrify piece by piece. It also de-links stock and infra change which we’ve seen doesn’t gel well when either or both get delayed (as the latter is highly likely).

For Chiltern, it really needs to be a project that longer term does it all to Birmingham and the Snow Hill lines. A dedicated “team” assigned to do all of this over say 10 years would make sense?

Not sure on phases, lots of options as others have articulated above - it also links to EWR, but I figure with service intensity and urban air quality as the drivers you’d do the ends before the middle?

 

[Mikey C]

The thing is, Chiltern desperately need more stock, so it's not as if Hybridising their existing units will tie them over for 10 years. And having units away for conversion reduces this number even further!

 

[Energy]

The thing is, Chiltern desperately need more stock, so it's not as if Hybridising their existing units will tie them over for 10 years. And having units away for conversion reduces this number even further!

The hybrid conversion was announced a couple years back, I don't think it was meant to take this long. Chiltern's franchise ends in the near future and it seems likely the 165s will go to another operator after more stock has arrived.

 

[The Planner]

The hybrid conversion was announced a couple years back, I don't think it was meant to take this long. Chiltern's franchise ends in the near future and it seems likely the 165s will go to another operator after more stock has arrived.

I doubt Chiltern will go any other way than a direct award for the foreseeable.

 

[corfield]

Chiltern are the last of the original franchisees still standing?

 

[Speed43125]

Chiltern are the last of the original franchisees still standing?

I believe Virgin were the last? Chiltern got the franchise in 1996, 2 years after privatisation

 

[Domh245]

I believe Virgin were the last? Chiltern got the franchise in 1996, 2 years after privatisation

Virgin started in 1997, so Chiltern are the longest continuously running franchise, although the current franchise strictly speaking began in 2002, but it was retained meaning that they (M40 trains) have been running it since 1996

 

[AndrewE]

Virgin started in 1997, so Chiltern are the longest continuously running franchise, although the current franchise strictly speaking began in 2002, but it was retained meaning that they (M40 trains) have been running it since 1996

...but Virgin are only anywhere near if you allow a "continuing franchise" to include lots of direct awards, or management contracts - or whatever else they have been called over the years!

 

[Mikey C]

The scope of the GWR franchise has changed over the years, but the same operator has effectively operated the long distance element from Paddington since privatisation

 

[klass43]

the U. K. railway exists at the tax-payers' expense and most tax-payers don't regard railways as especially important.

That attitude will have to change unless more and more motorists want to spend extra time sitting in traffic jams and the way things are going permanent gridlock in some areas.

 

[chorleyjeff]

luckily [most] governments take a broader view on what is worth doing, including considering the health consequences (for others) of selfish people insisting on driving into town and city centres.that may well be which doesn't apply to roadbuilding then? Not to mention the contrast with the energy used in making road vehicles compared with that in the long life-span of railway vehicles....In which case that traffic should probably be on trains or other public transport anyway. Time to take out road capacity and reallocate the space and money to active transport and public transport.

Another joker. Try getting into, say, Preston from the commuter places North, South and West of the town by rail. New or additional tracks and stations needed please. Anyone for reopening the Southport line or putting more stations on the Wigan to Preston line ?

 

[AndrewE]

Another joker. Try getting into, say, Preston from the commuter places North, South and West of the town by rail. New or additional tracks and stations needed please.

That goes without saying.

Anyone for reopening the Southport line or putting more stations on the Wigan to Preston line?

Again, any organisation taking a broad view of transport provision (and genuinely trying to make travel both easy and lower-carbon) would go for low-hanging fruit like platforms on slow lines, re-quadrupling and any easy reopenings.
Significant enhancements to the network ought to follow, but I do recognise that there are corridors where the quickest fix (and maybe best in the long-term too) is more buses - as long as they are given enhanced priority. Like I said, "Time to take out road capacity and reallocate the space and money to active transport and public transport."

 

[corfield]

The scope of the GWR franchise has changed over the years, but the same operator has effectively operated the long distance element from Paddington since privatisation

Yes - although has the DfT been less incompetent then both FGW and Virgin would not have had that longevity!

Chiltern seem a very good case of why Nationalisation, Full/Lite/Whatever We Can Get Away with - isn’t the answer? Although rather outweighed by other examples perhaps...

 

[cle]

They are the exception. But they did have very different circumstances and conditions - so perhaps those are the learnings? Although I feel that we could see the benefits even from Evergeen 1 vs other TOCs, and yet hardly any were subsequently structured that way, with any meaningful independent investment.