Which lines do you think would benefit from 3rd rail electrification?

[daodao]

Or extend it to Aylesbury and run Chiltern only via Wycombe.

I agree - as per my post 137 on this thread.

 

[A0]

Or extend it to Aylesbury and run Chiltern only via Wycombe.

Aylesbury is over 30 miles out of London and is the county town of Bucks. It's classed as South Midlands - there is precisely no justification for extending an element of the London Underground network out that far. The mistake was even electrifying to Amersham in 1960 but that was in part driven by a disinterested BR.

 

[daodao]

Aylesbury is over 30 miles out of London and is the county town of Bucks. It's classed as South Midlands - there is precisely no justification for extending an element of the London Underground network out that far. The mistake was even electrifying to Amersham in 1960 but that was in part driven by a disinterested BR.

The Met used to run to Verney Junction and ran to Aylesbury until 1961. It would simplify matters to transfer all services from Aylesbury via Amersham to LU, using 4th rail electrification. The residual Chiltern services via High Wycombe could be routed to the platforms at Paddington to be vacated by services to be linked to Crossrail, and the South Ruislip to Marylebone line and Marylebone itself closed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Met used to run to Verney Junction and ran to Aylesbury until 1961. It would simplify matters to transfer all services from Aylesbury via Amersham to LU, using 4th rail electrification. The residual Chiltern services via High Wycombe could be routed to the platforms at Paddington to be vacated by services to be linked to Crossrail, and the South Ruislip to Marylebone line and Marylebone itself closed.

Don't think I'd do that as MYB is far more usefully located than PAD which is out in the sticks. But the Met is itself an outlier in LU terms and is basically the same idea as Merseyrail (which goes all the way out to Chester) - definitely S-bahn if you were chucking the German designators around. It's an historical accident that it's operated by LU, as it's really a suburban commuter service that just happens to run onto the top end of the Circle Line.

 

[corfield]

Here you go.

Where's the space at Marylebone for enough service to supply those places? It's a tighter fit than the Met as you'll be trying to squeeze 6tph into a small pot (Marylebone) rather than trying to sneak in an extra 2tph through Finchley Road.

The 2018 Mayoral Transport Strategy has both Met and Chiltern (the latter of which arrive at Amersham with 4-5 standees/m^2) leaving Amersham in the 2041 am peak with over 5 standees/m^2 (which is 'maximum observed standing capacity' that is typically what's given as official capacity of LU trains). Chesham trains give Chalfont and Chorleywood some breathing space, but it quickly reaches an average of 5+/m^2 again. (source: this map). Reduction of frequency isn't an option, even if this is over-optimistic.

Sure you can demolish flats or something, but it's an awful lot of money, just to stand still. Dual-electrification of Chiltern trains, or even of Harrow-Amersham tracks, and just keeping the status quo of two different services on the route is a far cheaper solution!

And yet your solution doesn’t work, as you point out the route is overloaded. Investment in the Chiltern side seems the only option.

 

[A0]

The Met used to run to Verney Junction and ran to Aylesbury until 1961. It would simplify matters to transfer all services from Aylesbury via Amersham to LU, using 4th rail electrification. The residual Chiltern services via High Wycombe could be routed to the platforms at Paddington to be vacated by services to be linked to Crossrail, and the South Ruislip to Marylebone line and Marylebone itself closed.

Is it 1983 again?

 

[A0]

But the Met is itself an outlier in LU terms and is basically the same idea as Merseyrail (which goes all the way out to Chester) -

Chester's nowhere near as far from Liverpool as Amersham is from London.

And the extension of Merseyrail to Chester was operational convenience more than anything. There wasn't a parallel service competing for the line - had the Western Region service to Birkenhead survived, Merseyrail probably wouldn't have gone to Hooton let alone Chester.

 

[si404]

Investment in the Chiltern side seems the only option.

Sure, but it would be totally negated should one remove the Met from north of Ricky, which is the suggestion being mooted.

 

[stuu]

The Met used to run to Verney Junction and ran to Aylesbury until 1961. It would simplify matters to transfer all services from Aylesbury via Amersham to LU, using 4th rail electrification. The residual Chiltern services via High Wycombe could be routed to the platforms at Paddington to be vacated by services to be linked to Crossrail, and the South Ruislip to Marylebone line and Marylebone itself closed.

Residual? 90% of Chiltern services go via High Wycombe! Any spare space at Paddington freed by crossrail has already been earmarked for other services.

Apart from that it's a great idea

 

[edwin_m]

Residual? 90% of Chiltern services go via High Wycombe! Any spare space at Paddington freed by crossrail has already been earmarked for other services.

Apart from that it's a great idea

Not to mention that the HS2 station at Old Oak blocks the route between the Wycombe line and Paddington, so it would need a slow deviation via the Greenford line.

The Valley Lines electrification presents an interesting third way as it will use 25kV AC electrification but with greater gaps than normal neutral sections, relying on the trains having enough battery power to get under bridges and through tunnels. I'm not entirely sure on whether the tram-trains will have a low-voltage DC capability too, as the current extent of street running is planned to be short enough for battery power. I expect they probably will given the minimal cost of 750V DC pickup capability, and the fact that the Citylink design is used elsewhere with 750V and 25kV capability (e.g. in Sheffield).

The Valley Lines scheme seems to be more generalisable across the network. Going for anything other than 750V DC third/fourth rail or 25kV AC OHLE means having a microfleet. That's fine when a region has a number of rail services which can all be swapped over to metro operation in one go, but there aren't many urban rail networks across Britain. As soon as you spend much time on the mainline, it probably makes more sense to just go for 25kV AC. You won't see 750V DC OHLE on the quieter bits of the Greater Anglia network, for example.

Cardiff has aspiration for new light rail branches off the Valley Lines in the longer term, and if these involve any unsegregated running they will probably be 750V. So I would expect (but I don't know for sure) that the tram-trains have this capability.

I'm not convinced that 750V "islands" for branches off a 25kV railway would be worthwhile. 750V needs frequent substations, probably at least two per branch for redundancy, whereas at 25kV branches such as St Albans and Southminster can usually be fed off the main line. If a new 25kV feeder was needed this would be mainly because the main line was a bit short of power, so would probably be needed anyway without electrification of the branch.

 

[RichJF]

Just out of curiosity, how long would it take a diesel island (Hurst Green-Uckfield or Marshlink) to have the 3rd rail installed & actually ready to go?

 

[A0]

Just out of curiosity, how long would it take a diesel island (Hurst Green-Uckfield or Marshlink) to have the 3rd rail installed & actually ready to go?

How long is a piece of string ?

I suspect it depends on a whole multitude of factors - starting with a risk assessment on each line identifying whether there are any crossings etc which will need to be closed, whether there is any drainage or similar issues (because HV supplies and water really aren't a good mix), whether they can be fed from the existing power supplies - if they can't then you're in the realms of having to install new sub-stations for which you need the relevant land etc.

I very much doubt that it's simply a case of dropping the conductor rail onto the existing sleepers and just plugging it in to the nearest supply. But since I'm not an expert in such matters I'm sure another 'armchair expert' will be along shortly to tell me how wrong I am. Or more likely somebody who knows rather more about this stuff will come along and add extensively to the list.....

 

[corfield]

Sure, but it would be totally negated should one remove the Met from north of Ricky, which is the suggestion being mooted.

Why? the opposite is the case? Investment in Chiltern (capacity at MYB and approaches) is intrinsically linked to taking what are currently Met services surely? Granted it could also do other tasks but with some services going to OOC the Main Line has relief in sight?

Of course the ideal option would be to extend a seperate pair of lines to Amersham and de-link them that way. AIUI, the Met is preferred from there for it’s direct services to the City so there is much more than just lines/terminal capacity in that wholesale transfer to Chiltern would remove a major service aspect.

Alternatively Crossrail 3 linking NW (Aylesbury, Met & WCML slows) through to??

 

[Bald Rick]

Just out of curiosity, how long would it take a diesel island (Hurst Green-Uckfield or Marshlink) to have the 3rd rail installed & actually ready to go?

The same length of time as putting up OLE. The longest lead time item is getting a connection to the national grid or DNO, and that is roughly 5 years. And it’s needed regardless of what type of electrification.

 

[A0]

The same length of time as putting up OLE. The longest lead time item is getting a connection to the national grid or DNO, and that is roughly 5 years. And it’s needed regardless of what type of electrification.

You do realise with that one post you've destroyed the illusions of the legions of armchair experts around here that thought to do a 3rd rail electrification was simply a case of rock up with some conductor rail, drill a few holes on some sleepers, drop the conductor rail in place and plug it in to the nearest socket - all of which could be knocked off in a week, or a weekend with lots of overtime ?

It does mean though that neither of those infills are likely to be electrified this side of about 2030 on a good day with a prevailing wind, by which time other solutions may be available.

 

[Bald Rick]

You do realise with that one post you've destroyed the illusions of the legions of armchair experts around here that thought to do a 3rd rail electrification was simply a case of rock up with some conductor rail, drill a few holes on some sleepers, drop the conductor rail in place and plug it in to the nearest socket - all of which could be knocked off in a week, or a weekend with lots of overtime ?

It does mean though that neither of those infills are likely to be electrified this side of about 2030 on a good day with a prevailing wind, by which time other solutions may be available.

Well, yes, where a grid connection is required. That’s not the case everywhere, but certainly is for Uckfield, and I’m fairly sure is needed for Marshlink. It’s also necessary for many upgrades to train service (new trains, more trains, higher speeds) - hence the issues on the ECML north of York.

Of course in some areas there is enough juice in the system already to cope with small extensions. As an example, the Shotts line needs some more power before being able to be used to its full capability, that connection isn’t coming for another couple of years, albeit it was wired 18 months ago.

 

[A0]

NotATrainspott

I can’t understand why some of the Southern branches such as Uckfield couldn’t be electrified with a basic 750v tramway style overhead system. Relatively low speed lines, stops every 3-4 miles. Yes you would need units with a pantograph but that should be relatively simple. Electrification without the seemingly huge clearance etc. costs and risks of 25kv, and without the safety risks to track workers. And foxes of course

Can I refer you to @Bald Rick 's posts #194 and #201 - that's even before you go down the rabbit hole of introducing a different standard to those currently in use by NR.

 

[mr_jrt]

Not to mention that the HS2 station at Old Oak blocks the route between the Wycombe line and Paddington, so it would need a slow deviation via the Greenford line.

Minor point, it's not the station so much as the removal of the up flyover from the plans that blocks the route, and only partially. The platforms themselves aren't an obstacle, as far as I'm aware. The original plan was to have the flyover and have the turnbacks running along the alignment, which also passively provided for the WCML/NNML link. Having cut the WCML link to save money, the flyover has been descoped away. The concept for Chiltern to serve OOC involves running along the outside of the up line into a platform or two in the gap between the GWML and HS2 platforms.

 

[si404]

Why?

Because the increase in capacity serving Amersham, etc created by spending what seems to be about a billion pounds at Marylebone is wiped out by then removing the capacity serving Amersham, etc provided by the Met line. It's just moving stuff around at great expense.

Investment in Chiltern (capacity at MYB and approaches) is intrinsically linked to taking what are currently Met services surely?

There is to be no investment (beyond platform lengthening) in such a way - in the words of the West Midlands and Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices (p23):

In order to deliver the required capacity, additional services are needed which would require new platforms at Marylebone. Due to constraints atat the constrained nature of the existing station site, these would need to be outside of the footprint of the station. The complete redesign of Marylebone station, platforms and track layout is considered too disruptive and unaffordable to meet the long term demand forecast and has not been evaluated further within the Route Study. The likely cost is driven by the need to acquire land in central London to achieve this enhancement. Line capacity between Neasden and Marylebone is also likely to constrain overall network capability if more services were to operate into Marylebone.

It then goes on to propose OOC to provide an alternative (and much cheaper, even though it's not that cheap) capacity enhancement at the London end of the Mainline (and the diversion of the mid-distance services into it creating space for enhanced 'Chiltern Metro' services out of Marylebone). So, yes, I guess, you are right that any enhancements at Marylebone (and out to Neasden) would be about the Aylesbury via Amersham line - because OOC aids the mainline (in a very similar way to how the Met already aids the via Amersham route) and it's the only thing not helped by the OOC branch.

However, while you have the line right, investment at Marylebone and out to Neasden will never be about taking over what are currently Met services. It is an insane amount of money to get the non-benefit of merely moving capacity around. In fact, even if it was only £100m or something, it would still be a total waste of money.

Of course the ideal option would be to extend a seperate pair of lines to Amersham and de-link them that way.

The ideal option is to not waste money fixing what is only actually broken in a few people's heads. The ideal option is to spend money wisely on problems that actually are problems!

There is a problem on that corridor, but it's not that there are both Met and Chiltern services running on the same tracks. The problem is capacity issues on both routes south of Wembley Park/Neasden being unable to supply enough trains to that shared branch - if together they don't quite manage, they certainly won't manage if trying to do it alone!

The best non-giga (ie less than £10s of billions) project capacity fix for the corridor is to continue to use the capacity that exists on the Met for it, and enhance the Chiltern capacity for the purpose of enhancing capacity overall - not to try and replace capacity that already exists via the Met trains.

AIUI, the Met is preferred from there for it’s direct services to the City so there is much more than just lines/terminal capacity in that wholesale transfer to Chiltern would remove a major service aspect.

There's also the popular cross-platform interchange onto the Jubilee at Finchley Road on the Met. But Chiltern is faster, especially when there's no fast Mets due to being off-peak. Usage is actually about 50-50 (slightly in favour of the Met), with the Met having a big difference in the peak vs off-peak, but Chiltern being pretty constant throughout the day - both routes have their merits, and like the passengers of Amersham en masse I'm pretty indifferent about which one is preferable (it depends on many factors and is different from person to person and journey to journey). If you are going to (pointlessly) force just one service provider on that line, I'd go with the Met, simply as it would be easier to bump the Met peak frequency by 14% from 28tph to 32tph than it would be to bump Marylebone peak frequency by 40% from 15tph to 21tph - and that's without actually running any more trains than now.

My issue isn't about where the trains from Amersham, etc end up in London. Nor who runs them. My issue is this idea that somehow only one operator is allowed - the fixes to allow that to occur (even if you go with the easier solution of the Met) are far more difficult and expensive than simply having dual-voltage units providing the Chiltern service on that route when the Chiltern service is electrified.

And it seems Network Rail agrees with me here too (WM&C Route Study, p81):

To maximise the benefits of the Chiltern Capacity Package, potential electrification options for the line between Aylesbury and Marylebone (via Amersham) have been considered. The route includes London Underground infrastructure which is shared with national rail services (Metropolitan line between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham) and is fourth-rail electrified. This makes it challenging to introduce AC electrification throughout the whole route. Any future development work assessing Chiltern main line electrification options should consider the potential for part-electrifying the Aylesbury and Marylebone route, excluding the section between Amersham and Harrow on the Hill. This would involve consideration of dual voltage or bi-mode rolling stock which could operate as a combined fleet on both the Aylesbury route and the main line.

 

[Verulamius]

Has the proposed station plan for OOC provided, or passively provided, for platform(s) for the Chiltern services?

 

[Mikey C]

Chiltern capacity can (and should) first be increased by lengthening the trains, many of which are still ridiculously short for London commuter trains. Presumably this will only happen with the 165s are replaced.

 

[corfield]

Because the increase in capacity serving Amersham, etc created by spending what seems to be about a billion pounds at Marylebone is wiped out by then removing the capacity serving Amersham, etc provided by the Met line. It's just moving stuff around at great expense.
There is to be no investment (beyond platform lengthening) in such a way - in the words of the West Midlands and Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices (p23):

In order to deliver the required capacity, additional services are needed which would require new platforms at Marylebone. Due to constraints atat the constrained nature of the existing station site, these would need to be outside of the footprint of the station. The complete redesign of Marylebone station, platforms and track layout is considered too disruptive and unaffordable to meet the long term demand forecast and has not been evaluated further within the Route Study. The likely cost is driven by the need to acquire land in central London to achieve this enhancement. Line capacity between Neasden and Marylebone is also likely to constrain overall network capability if more services were to operate into Marylebone.

It then goes on to propose OOC to provide an alternative (and much cheaper, even though it's not that cheap) capacity enhancement at the London end of the Mainline (and the diversion of the mid-distance services into it creating space for enhanced 'Chiltern Metro' services out of Marylebone). So, yes, I guess, you are right that any enhancements at Marylebone (and out to Neasden) would be about the Aylesbury via Amersham line - because OOC aids the mainline (in a very similar way to how the Met already aids the via Amersham route) and it's the only thing not helped by the OOC branch.

However, while you have the line right, investment at Marylebone and out to Neasden will never be about taking over what are currently Met services. It is an insane amount of money to get the non-benefit of merely moving capacity around. In fact, even if it was only £100m or something, it would still be a total waste of money.
The ideal option is to not waste money fixing what is only actually broken in a few people's heads. The ideal option is to spend money wisely on problems that actually are problems!

There is a problem on that corridor, but it's not that there are both Met and Chiltern services running on the same tracks. The problem is capacity issues on both routes south of Wembley Park/Neasden being unable to supply enough trains to that shared branch - if together they don't quite manage, they certainly won't manage if trying to do it alone!

The best non-giga (ie less than £10s of billions) project capacity fix for the corridor is to continue to use the capacity that exists on the Met for it, and enhance the Chiltern capacity for the purpose of enhancing capacity overall - not to try and replace capacity that already exists via the Met trains.
There's also the popular cross-platform interchange onto the Jubilee at Finchley Road on the Met. But Chiltern is faster, especially when there's no fast Mets due to being off-peak. Usage is actually about 50-50 (slightly in favour of the Met), with the Met having a big difference in the peak vs off-peak, but Chiltern being pretty constant throughout the day - both routes have their merits, and like the passengers of Amersham en masse I'm pretty indifferent about which one is preferable (it depends on many factors and is different from person to person and journey to journey). If you are going to (pointlessly) force just one service provider on that line, I'd go with the Met, simply as it would be easier to bump the Met peak frequency by 14% from 28tph to 32tph than it would be to bump Marylebone peak frequency by 40% from 15tph to 21tph - and that's without actually running any more trains than now.

My issue isn't about where the trains from Amersham, etc end up in London. Nor who runs them. My issue is this idea that somehow only one operator is allowed - the fixes to allow that to occur (even if you go with the easier solution of the Met) are far more difficult and expensive than simply having dual-voltage units providing the Chiltern service on that route when the Chiltern service is electrified.

And it seems Network Rail agrees with me here too (WM&C Route Study, p81):

To maximise the benefits of the Chiltern Capacity Package, potential electrification options for the line between Aylesbury and Marylebone (via Amersham) have been considered. The route includes London Underground infrastructure which is shared with national rail services (Metropolitan line between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham) and is fourth-rail electrified. This makes it challenging to introduce AC electrification throughout the whole route. Any future development work assessing Chiltern main line electrification options should consider the potential for part-electrifying the Aylesbury and Marylebone route, excluding the section between Amersham and Harrow on the Hill. This would involve consideration of dual voltage or bi-mode rolling stock which could operate as a combined fleet on both the Aylesbury route and the main line.

You seem to be having an argument with yourself here - and a slightly odd approach to numbers by just scaling up the exaggeration level every time.
Now we are in 10s of billions territory as a jump from “mere” billions at MYB.

The perception is that the Aylesbury line is difficult to electrify, also that it is slow and so separating that Chiltern route allows those issues to be dealt with. This as has been mentioned has never been grasped in the past, but for negative reasons rather than good (lack of interest, cost cutting/decline).
Cutting the Met back isn’t desirable as it removes direct services etc, plus capacity. However that might be in the interests of other Met enhancements and the long expressed lack of LU interest in the outer Met/fast services. MYB has potential for capacity (platforms, no idea on approaches). OOC plans/ideas (whatever they are) as I pointed out relieves the Chiltern Main line so MYB has potential (not plans) to be enhanced for the other line.

Solving it with bimode/batteries is of course an option (arguably the easy one) - but it stands still capacity/enhancement wise. Before jumping in with those it seems sensible to consider options. Hence the ideas people express and discuss. It being a discussion forum after all.

 

[A0]

Chiltern capacity can (and should) first be increased by lengthening the trains, many of which are still ridiculously short for London commuter trains. Presumably this will only happen with the 165s are replaced.

I agree - but I think we're straying a bit off topic perhaps @Moderating team could split out the posts about the Chiltern line challenges into a different thread?

 

[si404]

You seem to be having an argument with yourself here

Well you don't seem keen on actually reading what I am saying and actually engaging with my very simply point other than dogmatically asserting that I'm wrong, so maybe I am talking to myself!

Hence the ideas people express and discuss. It being a discussion forum after all.

Discussion would be fantastic!

Now we are in 10s of billions territory as a jump from “mere” billions at MYB.

Well, you were the one who proposed a Crossrail as an alternative, which will obviously cost £10s of billions:

Alternatively Crossrail 3 linking NW (Aylesbury, Met & WCML slows) through to??

Perhaps I should consider that option, but it's seems rather off-topic for a thread on electrification...

And I didn't say "mere billions" at MYB - I said "about a billion". This is part of what I mean by not actually reading what I am saying:

what seems to be about a billion pounds at Marylebone

Old Oak Common was priced at up to £360m, and was given as a cheaper alternative to Marylebone. It's really not unreasonable to think that the uncosted Marylebone enhancements would be 2.5-3 times the price of the cheaper scheme and so in the £750m-£1b price range. "about a billion" seems right, but as I also said, it doesn't really matter as £100m is still too much to spend on just moving capacity around.

Solving it with bimode/batteries is of course an option (arguably the easy one) - but it stands still capacity/enhancement wise.

As does spending a truck load of money on enhancing capacity south of Neasden and then wasting it all by using it simply to replace the Met services. That's my discussion point for you, which you haven't engaged with - that using the enhancement to not actually provide any more trains to Amersham, instead merely changing where they go to, has little benefit.

You keep proposing replacing the Met services, refusing to acknowledge my point that you aren't actually enhancing capacity, and refusing to consider that there's a far simpler and cheaper solution to the electrification problem that's used in many places (London Overground, Thameslink, HS1) - dual-electrification.

I don't have a problem with the option of spending a load of money at Marylebone - my problem, having considered it, is when it's about moving capacity, rather than actually enhancing it. But when I point out that removing the Met services is a silly idea, you say that that's the whole point of the intervention at MYB you are talking about.

Investment in the Chiltern side seems the only option.

Sure, but it would be totally negated should one remove the Met from north of Ricky, which is the suggestion being mooted.

Investment in Chiltern (capacity at MYB and approaches) is intrinsically linked to taking what are currently Met services surely?

Have I misunderstood you? Is not your proposal all about evicting the Met from north of Ricky? That's what you have said.

 

[Taunton]

Chiltern capacity can (and should) first be increased by lengthening the trains, many of which are still ridiculously short for London commuter trains. Presumably this will only happen with the 165s are replaced.

Indeed. I boarded inbound at Rickmansworth at 3pm on a weekday last year, just missed an 8-car Met train, what should follow but a 2-car Chiltern. Never got a seat of course.

 

[corfield]

Chiltern capacity can (and should) first be increased by lengthening the trains, many of which are still ridiculously short for London commuter trains. Presumably this will only happen with the 165s are replaced.

I’d assumed Chiltern would take some of the GW Thames 165s but issues on releasing them and cascade elsewhere I guess. Lengthening gives seats but it is still slow and that doesn’t improve frequency. Ex West Midlands 172s might be an option?

 

[Bald Rick]

Short platforms are surely the issue on the Aylesbury line. Any change in rolling stock has that to contend with.

 

[corfield]

Well you don't seem keen on actually reading what I am saying and actually engaging with my very simply point other than dogmatically asserting that I'm wrong, so maybe I am talking to myself!
Discussion would be fantastic!

Well, you were the one who proposed a Crossrail as an alternative, which will obviously cost £10s of billions:

Perhaps I should consider that option, but it's seems rather off-topic for a thread on electrification...

And I didn't say "mere billions" at MYB - I said "about a billion". This is part of what I mean by not actually reading what I am saying:

Old Oak Common was priced at up to £360m, and was given as a cheaper alternative to Marylebone. It's really not unreasonable to think that the uncosted Marylebone enhancements would be 2.5-3 times the price of the cheaper scheme and so in the £750m-£1b price range. "about a billion" seems right, but as I also said, it doesn't really matter as £100m is still too much to spend on just moving capacity around.

As does spending a truck load of money on enhancing capacity south of Neasden and then wasting it all by using it simply to replace the Met services. That's my discussion point for you, which you haven't engaged with - that using the enhancement to not actually provide any more trains to Amersham, instead merely changing where they go to, has little benefit.

You keep proposing replacing the Met services, refusing to acknowledge my point that you aren't actually enhancing capacity, and refusing to consider that there's a far simpler and cheaper solution to the electrification problem that's used in many places (London Overground, Thameslink, HS1) - dual-electrification.

I don't have a problem with the option of spending a load of money at Marylebone - my problem, having considered it, is when it's about moving capacity, rather than actually enhancing it. But when I point out that removing the Met services is a silly idea, you say that that's the whole point of the intervention at MYB you are talking about.




Have I misunderstood you? Is not your proposal all about evicting the Met from north of Ricky? That's what you have said.

Your complaint at not being read sits badly with your misreading of others. You do realise a discussion is not a hurling of fixed in stone points that have been worked out on sole kind of costed and linear non conflicting basis? It is ideas, thoughts.

MYB capacity needs building for a variety of reasons. No idea why you think it would be 2.5-3x OOC, that appears entirely plucked from the air. As I said- I’m mot sure if the approaches to MYB are the constraint as well as platforms - resolving those would I agree be billion pound territory given tunnels and land.

You seem obsessed on labelling this as “moving capacity around”. Yet taking over the Met (suggested by others which I can see both sides of as my previous post highlighted given demand for its destinations) - has benefits to the Met/Baker Street in terms of growth and loadings - ie relief. Separating the lines (eg additional track in Ricky area) has electrification and operational benefits including that Chiltern are constrained in speeds which LU isn’t interested in. Some of this is not either/or.

With OOC taking some services and demand for metro style ops on the main line (currently suppressed) there are lots of strands to this.
Hence why best to stop probably as not the thread for it.

 

[si404]

MYB capacity needs building for a variety of reasons.

Excellent. You've stopped hurling your fixed in stone point that MYB upgrades are "intrinsically about taking over the Met" and talk about other reasons beyond taking over the Met, now we can actually discuss...

Yet taking over the Met

Oh, wait, spoke too soon.

Never mind, I'll engage with these points, which are far more thought-out than previously.

benefits to the Met/Baker Street in terms of growth and loadings - ie relief.

Amersham/Chesham trains run because of a surplus of (track) capacity on the Met allows them to run. Neither Watford nor Uxbridge need more trains than planned in the upgrade (and TfL make clear that Watford itself doesn't need the trains it is getting, and that it's a symptom of needing to supply enough trains at Northwood and Pinner). The bit of the Met that needs relief (other than Finchley Road-Great Portland Street) is the bit you are planning on removing from the Met, and not actually relieving or increasing capacity on.

Chiltern are constrained in speeds which LU isn’t interested in.

There's not much that can be done for speeds from a handover. South of Harrow, a Met is only (at most) 5 minutes slower than a Chiltern to Baker Street/Marylebone - which, given there's 4 intermediate stops on the Met, is really not much quicker. So either NR/Chiltern "isn't interested in" in upping speeds just like you (IMV, wrongly) claim LU are, or that there's not the scope for improvement than you think (this here is the answer).

The problem with slow journey times to Aylesbury is that the line is not aligned for speed - it's too curvy. North of Amersham is only 70mph (instead of the 75mph the trains can do). Rickmansworth - Amersham is 60mph and trains rarely seem to even get up to that. A Met from Amersham to Rickmansworth is 10-11 minutes (38.5mph average), and a Chiltern Turbo is 12 minutes (32mph average). Now, OK there's 2 intermediate stops, plus the standing start/stop, within that 6.4 miles - but the line speed is 60 and, IME, they don't tend to reach that. Perhaps it's a timetabling issue created due to the merges heading towards London? But the other way, where that's not an issue, it's still 11 and 13 (slower because of the big uphill out of Rickmansworth) - still those terrible average speeds. Having electric trains for Chiltern would trim some time off (make them equal to the S Stock), but that doesn't need to mean getting rid of the currently faster S-stock from the route to get them out of the way - not least because they aren't in the way!

I'd imagine some of the slow running is because of signalling/track - certainly it's an issue on the Harrow-Moor Park fasts (which have been lowered from 70 to 50 for LU and 75 to 60 for NR), but an issue which TfL are working on with their modernisation programme.

Separating the lines has electrification benefits

And now, getting back to the actual topic of this thread - yes there are some electrification benefits of not crossing the streams, but they aren't good enough to justify the untangling of Met and Chiltern.

Fitting shoes on to Chiltern electric trains so they can use the LU electrification, and keeping the long-term arrangement to run on LU tracks, is far cheaper than adding platforms at MYB (known to be incredibly expensive else OOC wouldn't exist as an idea, but - as I've said twice already - it doesn't matter if they cost a mere £100m, the costs would still not be justified by the small benefits).

The alternative segregation, of Met to Aylesbury, is easier than cutting the Met short - but there's the issue of finding space to continue to provide the post-upgrade frequencies of 12tph at Uxbridge and Northwood, and 8tph on the fast lines (4 of which are Chiltern) - which I feel is a more tricky technical issue than simply having trains do at Harrow and Amersham what they do at Acton Central, Ashford, City Thameslink, Drayton Park, Ebbsfleet, Farringdon and Shepherds Bush - change from OHLE to railed electrification.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Excellent. You've stopped hurling your fixed in stone point that MYB upgrades are "intrinsically about taking over the Met" and talk about other reasons beyond taking over the Met, now we can actually discuss...
Oh, wait, spoke too soon.

Never mind, I'll engage with these points, which are far more thought-out than previously.
Amersham/Chesham trains run because of a surplus of (track) capacity on the Met allows them to run. Neither Watford nor Uxbridge need more trains than planned in the upgrade (and TfL make clear that Watford itself doesn't need the trains it is getting, and that it's a symptom of needing to supply enough trains at Northwood and Pinner). The bit of the Met that needs relief (other than Finchley Road-Great Portland Street) is the bit you are planning on removing from the Met, and not actually relieving or increasing capacity on.

There's not much that can be done for speeds from a handover. South of Harrow, a Met is only (at most) 5 minutes slower than a Chiltern to Baker Street/Marylebone - which, given there's 4 intermediate stops on the Met, is really not much quicker. So either NR/Chiltern "isn't interested in" in upping speeds just like you (IMV, wrongly) claim LU are, or that there's not the scope for improvement than you think (this here is the answer).

The problem with slow journey times to Aylesbury is that the line is not aligned for speed - it's too curvy. North of Amersham is only 70mph (instead of the 75mph the trains can do). Rickmansworth - Amersham is 60mph and trains rarely seem to even get up to that. A Met from Amersham to Rickmansworth is 10-11 minutes (38.5mph average), and a Chiltern Turbo is 12 minutes (32mph average). Now, OK there's 2 intermediate stops, plus the standing start/stop, within that 6.4 miles - but the line speed is 60 and, IME, they don't tend to reach that. Perhaps it's a timetabling issue created due to the merges heading towards London? But the other way, where that's not an issue, it's still 11 and 13 (slower because of the big uphill out of Rickmansworth) - still those terrible average speeds. Having electric trains for Chiltern would trim some time off (make them equal to the S Stock), but that doesn't need to mean getting rid of the currently faster S-stock from the route to get them out of the way - not least because they aren't in the way!

I'd imagine some of the slow running is because of signalling/track - certainly it's an issue on the Harrow-Moor Park fasts (which have been lowered from 70 to 50 for LU and 75 to 60 for NR), but an issue which TfL are working on with their modernisation programme.

And now, getting back to the actual topic of this thread - yes there are some electrification benefits of not crossing the streams, but they aren't good enough to justify the untangling of Met and Chiltern.

Fitting shoes on to Chiltern electric trains so they can use the LU electrification, and keeping the long-term arrangement to run on LU tracks, is far cheaper than adding platforms at MYB (known to be incredibly expensive else OOC wouldn't exist as an idea, but - as I've said twice already - it doesn't matter if they cost a mere £100m, the costs would still not be justified by the small benefits).

The alternative segregation, of Met to Aylesbury, is easier than cutting the Met short - but there's the issue of finding space to continue to provide the post-upgrade frequencies of 12tph at Uxbridge and Northwood, and 8tph on the fast lines (4 of which are Chiltern) - which I feel is a more tricky technical issue than simply having trains do at Harrow and Amersham what they do at Acton Central, Ashford, City Thameslink, Drayton Park, Ebbsfleet, Farringdon and Shepherds Bush - change from OHLE to railed electrification.

Turning over Amersham to Aylesbury to the Met is a much better plan, because it would mean the Met could run many more semi fasts into the heart of Central London, free up Marylebone a bit and allow the Cl165 to be cascaded.

Obviously, then the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury branch would have to doubled to allow 2tph Marylebone to Milton Keynes Central via High Wycombe , incorporating the existing Marylebone to AVP via High Wycombe and the branch shuttles.
I would also then extend 5tph of the Paddington Crossrail terminators through Old Oak Common and up the NNML to High Wycombe, with new stations at Park Royal (an interchange with Hanger Lane on the Central Line as well) and Greenford, then stopping at South and West Ruislip, both Denhams, Gerrards Cross, Seer Green & Jordans and Beaconsfield.
Use the 2tph Marylebone to Milton Keynes Central to cover the stops at Wembley Stadium, Sudbury and Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park.