Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Exactly. I think Chiltern terminating at Old Oak is a sensible option.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Extending Crossrail up the Chiltern Mainline
- Thread starter MidlandMainlie
- Start date
- Status
Exactly. I think Chiltern terminating at Old Oak is a sensible option.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
That is at least a reasonable argument. Crossrail has a lot of capacity though...*a lot*. All those Chiltern services terminating at OOC will need onward travel unless they happen to need OOC. If they're going to end up on the Crossrail trains anyway, they may as well take up those seats at their origin station along the Chiltern line, IMHO. Quite how many HS2 passengers decide to change at OOC will be interesting...I predict not that many, given the onward connectivity available at Euston. The primary diver of interchange will probably be those desiring locations along the GWML corridor, of which Heathrow will probably be the biggest draw, which empty trains towards the core tunnels will do absolutely nothing to serve. That said, onward travel to Soho and Canary Wharf may have significant traffic flows, but that would entirely depend on how much HS2 becomes a commuter service from the north.
Hence why I put that usefulness in the list of pros...
Service pattern is a simple OOC-Shenfield, GWML-Abbey Wood. This is done deliberately so that a service through the core only leaves the dedicated tracks on one side of the core to keep it simple and reliable and less affected by the interactions with other trains on the same tracks.
Calling upon Welwyn - a frequently cited bottleneck on the ECML - as if it was some big trump card is rather clutching at straws! While you've certainly created more space at the terminus (providing you close the inner stations, or at least continue to serve them poorly, undermining the key reason to relieve Marylebone) by removing services from it, you can't get to the terminus (other than from Aylesbury) as Lizzy's taken up the paths further up the line!
4tph Crossrail + 6tph Chilterns to Banbury/Aylesbury/Oxford/Birmingham is the same as runs on the two track section with no intermediate stations south of Neasden. It's 2tph more than currently through Denham, and the same as the number NR reckon is the max on that two-track railway through Beaconsfield (they have a further 2tph as far as Gerrards Cross) post upgrading with loops, digital railway, electrification, etc (they don't call it 'unconstrained' for nothing!). As I said, best case is 6tph Crossrail, and you've blocked any frequency upgrades further north than that (which happen under NR plans) unless you run Crossrail to Banbury, Aylesbury via HW, etc...
Add in that flighting works on lines like the WCML and ECML because of the high number of fast trains that branch off before stopping. It makes little sense on the Chiltern Mainline mid-distance/'mainline' services, where you are trying to create evenish intervals at places like Princes Risborough, Haddenham, Bicester (split over two) and instead having 2 services stop a couple of minutes apart then a big gap due to the flighting. And even headways at Gerrards X, etc too: if you flight the other trains, you'll create bunching and long gaps in the stopping services too.
True, but a second viaduct won't be cheap - not that you are at all bothered by budgets.
No, that would be a metro in the Chilterns - a good thing, but a totally different thing to 'Chiltern Metro', which is a specific term relating to Sudbury, Northolt Park, etc. Of course, a 'Chiltern Metro' doesn't preclude a metro service in the Chilterns - but your method of getting a metro in the Chiltern precludes 'Chiltern Metro'.
The argumentation you and others have used to justify this have been shown to be entirely based on ignorance: "other routes are way faster" "this other station is only a 5 minutes walk away".
Classic mr_jrt throw-tons-of-money around to fix problems created by already expensive 'solutions'.
It's pretty obvious that for you, when it comes to your schemes, that money is no object - ie who cares about real-world issues: just build a second viaduct, build a new tube branch, build an expensive junction...
So what was all that stuff about Welwyn not damaging capacity then?
2 paths. Just 2.
I've, at length, thoroughly debunked this nonsense these past few days, in other threads, to the point where I'm sick of it. You need at least 10tph at peak times just to keep the frequency (and you still won't have the capacity even with train lengthening to 6-car, which is all you can physically do at Rickmansworth) - you've found 2 more paths, allowing 6tph - where are the other 4 coming from??
You do realise that the point of running the MK service south of Aylesbury via the slower route via High Wycombe is to specifically link MK with Wycombe, right? It's not about London at all - hence why it's a service planned on running to Old Oak Common, rather than Marylebone.
daodao
Established Member
Most people who arrive at London terminal stations travel on elsewhere, generally within central London, but the terminus needs to be in LT zone U1 for easy and quick onward travel, not 5-10 miles out in the sticks like Old Oak Common; also imagine getting a taxi from there to say Oxford Circus. In Manchester, it would be like terminating trains from Littleborough and beyond at Rochdale and expecting passengers to travel onto Manchester by Metrolink. The negative impact of out-of-town termini can be seen elsewhere (both in the UK and abroad). Examples in the UK of the problems caused are the termini of diesel services on the outskirts of Liverpool at Bidston, Ormskirk and Kirkby. Even diverting services to take a roundabout route into the city centre has a negative impact on usage, as in the case of my local Network Rail service (the Mid Cheshire line).
So to summarise, the answer is:
- leave the Crossrail trains terminating at OOC (to safeguard regularity of service and ensure capacity for HS2 interchanging passengers;
- run some selected Chiltern services to OOC; but
- maintain Marylebone as inner-London Chiltern Lines terminus.
Forget any plans to extend Crossrail any further up the Chiltern Lines. There is no sensible case for this.
- leave the Crossrail trains terminating at OOC (to safeguard regularity of service and ensure capacity for HS2 interchanging passengers;
- run some selected Chiltern services to OOC; but
- maintain Marylebone as inner-London Chiltern Lines terminus.
Forget any plans to extend Crossrail any further up the Chiltern Lines. There is no sensible case for this.
Taking this range for where you put the centre, that means that your example of Oxford Circus (4.7 miles from OOC, and with very frequent trains that will get you there in under 10 minutes - no need to take a taxi!) isn't central!
Of course, OOC isn't 'the sticks' - your Manchester example (twice as far out at ~10 miles - the same distance as OOC-Canary Wharf) of Rochdale is on the edge of the urban area. I guess OOC is on the edge of London, but only because West/West of London is effectively a functionally separate economic unit to the rest of London - arguably it's own city - and one that's only beaten on size by Birmingham, Manchester and London itself. OOC isn't central to that either (nowhere really is - it's polycentric), but it is able to serve that 'city' decently in addition to London. Which is great for Chiltern Mainline places like Wycombe, as they are closely linked to that 'city' (more so than London itself), but have poor public transport links to that 'city' - mostly buses along the horribly congested roads.
And this is where comments like this:
miss a crucial point. They might be getting on Crossrail trains, but going west of OOC. A lot will go east, but Chiltern to OOC is almost as much about access to places like Slough and Southall as it is places like Soho and Stratford.
Access to OOC from the Chiltern Mainline is the point of reopening the New North Mainline - not giving Wycombe etc through service to Stratford - that's merely a nice to have that needs to justify itself as an add-on.
I just checked the TfL route planner for South Harrow-Oxford Circus. It suggests catching a bus to Harrow OTH. I would imagine going to Rayners Lane and catching the Met is also an option depending on the time of day/road traffic situation
London Trains
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,223
If they put a proper Park Royal interchange between the Piccadilly and Central, the journey would be much easier!
Rather a lot of people change between Met and Piccadilly at Rayners going over the bridge (ie getting off an Uxbridge-bound train and joining a London-bound train). When I used to do it, after I realised that I could never get over the bridge in time to get into the train that was just feet away on the other platform no matter how fast I ran, I observed - more people got off Uxbridge-bound Mets to get London-bound Piccadilly's than to leave the station. This was PM peak.
Fully concur. Though it would be easier at North Acton/West Ealing (which should be an Out-of-Station Interchange like Park Royal-Hanger Lane, but isn't), but that doesn't ease Greenford-Acton journeys - which would be just as useful as Alperton->Oxford Circus.
I agree it makes more sense to run the Chiltern services through - the loadings will be no different from outer Crossrail and I don’t think HS2 will dump that many at OOC. The points on outer interchanges are very pertinent.
For simplicity this would just be the 4tph planned, the others would continue to Marylebone as would Aylesbury - released capacity at MYB being used to strengthen those groups.
As a Chiltern user, MYB is a lovely station - quick to get in and out of and the walk is pretty easy ti Baker St, although I tend to walk all the way to Oxford St area destinations as the streets are interesting. I’m not generally pressed for time.
For simplicity this would just be the 4tph planned, the others would continue to Marylebone as would Aylesbury - released capacity at MYB being used to strengthen those groups.
As a Chiltern user, MYB is a lovely station - quick to get in and out of and the walk is pretty easy ti Baker St, although I tend to walk all the way to Oxford St area destinations as the streets are interesting. I’m not generally pressed for time.
HS2 modelling predicts one third of HS2 passengers will interchange at OOC. Indeed, they will have to, since the local transport infrastructure at Euston couldn't cope with the whole HS2 passenger load (which is pretty enormous).
AlbertBeale
Established Member
Would that be West Acton / North Ealing by any chance?!
Last edited:
There's not much in it distance wise, although I guess walking along a suburban Ealing street is nicer than walking along a slip road. There aren't any journeys which work better that way, unless I'm missing something.
I used to live in Pinner and we often went to Ealing, but never by public transport, the thought of having to wait for up to 10 minutes and change twice was too much to bear! Which sounds ridiculous now, considering that's virtually utopia for most of the country
Yes
It would be nice to have the option of validly 'outerchanging' there as well as along the A40 - in part due to it being a lot more pleasant!
And it would probably be easier to build an actual interchange there, though you don't get Greenford/Northolt-Acton/Chiswick - merely duplicating the Ealing Broadway connection that exists at Ealing Common.
London Trains
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,223
Would it be a good idea to use the 12tph that terminate at Paddington and run them along the New North Mainline and the Chiltern Mainline to High Wycombe?
I believe having 12 trains per hour terminate in Central London, when there is a line they could easily continue onto is a total waste of capacity, and my plan provides massive improvements to a large area.
I would have it replace the Central Line West Ruislip branch, with the Central line gaining a new, short branch to Old Oak Common, turning eastwards north of East Acton, and terminating at the southern end of the OOC complex, parallel to the GWML. The Central line service can then be equally split between Ealing Broadway and Old Oak Common, and nothing will terminate anywhere east, since OOC can have as much capacity and platforms as needed.
All the stations would need to be partially rebuilt with new, longer platforms, and the Chiltern Mainline would have to be quadruple tracked.
The service pattern and stations would be:
6tph to West Ruislip (...Old Oak Common, North Acton, Park Royal, Perivale, Greenford, Northolt, South Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens)
6tph to High Wycombe (...Old Oak Common, Park Royal, Greenford, Northolt, South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Denham, Denham Golf Club 2tph, Gerrards Cross, Seer Green 2tph, Beaconsfield, Loudwater 2tph) - Trains will alternate between the stations with 2tph.
Park Royal station would be situated between where Hanger Lane station and Park Royal (Piccadilly Line) station is. Loudwater station would be between Derehams Avenue and Rayners Avenue.
Obviously this would massively change the services at Marylebone. For that reason, along with the current plans to run some Chiltern services to OOC, I would close Wembley Stadium, Sudbury and Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park. All the Chiltern services (not including any via Amersham stuff) would run down the NNML to Old Oak Common, where there would be new terminating platforms. I would have 2tph Birmingham, 2tph Oxford, 1tph Stratford upon Avon and 1tph Leamington Spa. All of the stations served by the new Crossrail line, apart from Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, would not have any Chiltern services calling. The Aylesbury via High Wycombe service will start / terminate at High Wycombe and will be the only train to serve Saunderton.
I believe having 12 trains per hour terminate in Central London, when there is a line they could easily continue onto is a total waste of capacity, and my plan provides massive improvements to a large area.
I would have it replace the Central Line West Ruislip branch, with the Central line gaining a new, short branch to Old Oak Common, turning eastwards north of East Acton, and terminating at the southern end of the OOC complex, parallel to the GWML. The Central line service can then be equally split between Ealing Broadway and Old Oak Common, and nothing will terminate anywhere east, since OOC can have as much capacity and platforms as needed.
All the stations would need to be partially rebuilt with new, longer platforms, and the Chiltern Mainline would have to be quadruple tracked.
The service pattern and stations would be:
6tph to West Ruislip (...Old Oak Common, North Acton, Park Royal, Perivale, Greenford, Northolt, South Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens)
6tph to High Wycombe (...Old Oak Common, Park Royal, Greenford, Northolt, South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Denham, Denham Golf Club 2tph, Gerrards Cross, Seer Green 2tph, Beaconsfield, Loudwater 2tph) - Trains will alternate between the stations with 2tph.
Park Royal station would be situated between where Hanger Lane station and Park Royal (Piccadilly Line) station is. Loudwater station would be between Derehams Avenue and Rayners Avenue.
Obviously this would massively change the services at Marylebone. For that reason, along with the current plans to run some Chiltern services to OOC, I would close Wembley Stadium, Sudbury and Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park. All the Chiltern services (not including any via Amersham stuff) would run down the NNML to Old Oak Common, where there would be new terminating platforms. I would have 2tph Birmingham, 2tph Oxford, 1tph Stratford upon Avon and 1tph Leamington Spa. All of the stations served by the new Crossrail line, apart from Beaconsfield and High Wycombe, would not have any Chiltern services calling. The Aylesbury via High Wycombe service will start / terminate at High Wycombe and will be the only train to serve Saunderton.
Last edited:
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
Would make sense, but as I understand the lack of four-track on the Chiltern line makes this scheme unlikely.
Discussed two months ago - unlikely to happen - a) no rolling stock, b) no scope for the frequencies suggested, c) no money
Interesting claim, but in reality not many people can walk at a speed approaching 6 miles per hour!
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,694
Good luck closing Wembley Stadium.
The OOC branch is a good idea, but I don't understand why you'd want to increase Central line service to Ealing Broadway vs now when the Crossrail core opening will see a reduction as demand will be lower.
It seems like you haven't investigated traffic flows. Most importantly for your proposal is that you have not grasped the pull of White City/Shepherds Bush from the West Ruislip branch. There's a lot of people you are removing the direct train service for, and not as high a number as one would expect travelling to Central London and so would save a few minutes by bypassing Shepherds Bush.
Hang on, are you closing Marylebone, save for Amersham? That strikes me as very odd given the high frequency service through OOC from Wycombe and Beaconsfield under your plan. You also have twice the Chiltern trains terminating at OOC compared to the more official plan, which would surely mean twice as many platforms, and twice as much expense!
Hahaha
Key:
XR - Crossrail
GWR - Great Western Railway
HX - Heathrow Express
HC - Heathrow Connect
NNML - New North Main Line
OOC - Old Oak Common
HDM - Haddenham & Thame Parkway
BIV - Bicester Village
OXP - Oxford Parkway
I’d say there should be no OOC terminators, so I would do these things:
2tph slow to Reading made 4tph
GWR’s 2tph semi to Didcot made XR and 4tph
HX 4tph made XR, staying at 4tph
HC 2tph made XR and 4tph
2tph slow to West Drayton stays the same
GWR’s 2tph Greenford to West Ealing made XR Greenford to (somewhere the other side of London) with same frequency
4tph XR up the NNML, with all 4 stopping at Hanger Lane then 2tph going non stop to West Ruislip then all stops to Gerrards Cross. The other 2 would go non stop to South Ruislip then non stop to Gerrards Cross then all stops except Seer Green to High Wycombe.
If XR became 30tph, 4tph services would become 6tph and 2tph services would become 3tph.
GWR would have nothing stopping between Slough and OOC as a result of the changes above.
In terms of other Chiltern services, I’d say 2tph Marylebone to Gerrards Cross calling everywhere and also 2tph Marylebone to Banbury calling at WCX then all stations from Denham to Banbury. For the fast services, 2tph to Oxford would become 3tph with one service calling at High Wycombe, one at HDM and one at Islip. All would call at BIV, OXP & obviously Oxford. Stratford-upon-Avon would get a 1tph London service calling at Stratford Parkway, Wilmcote then all stops to Banbury then Bicester North then non stop to Marylebone. Birmingham would retain 2tph, but both would go through to Snow Hill. One would just call at Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warwick Parkway and Solihull with the other calling at those places plus High Wycombe and Dorridge. Aylesbury to Princes Risborough would be a simple shuttle unless XR High Wycombe services were extended. I’ve not figured out what I want for the Amersham side, though I know that East West Rail would be part of it.
XR - Crossrail
GWR - Great Western Railway
HX - Heathrow Express
HC - Heathrow Connect
NNML - New North Main Line
OOC - Old Oak Common
HDM - Haddenham & Thame Parkway
BIV - Bicester Village
OXP - Oxford Parkway
I’d say there should be no OOC terminators, so I would do these things:
2tph slow to Reading made 4tph
GWR’s 2tph semi to Didcot made XR and 4tph
HX 4tph made XR, staying at 4tph
HC 2tph made XR and 4tph
2tph slow to West Drayton stays the same
GWR’s 2tph Greenford to West Ealing made XR Greenford to (somewhere the other side of London) with same frequency
4tph XR up the NNML, with all 4 stopping at Hanger Lane then 2tph going non stop to West Ruislip then all stops to Gerrards Cross. The other 2 would go non stop to South Ruislip then non stop to Gerrards Cross then all stops except Seer Green to High Wycombe.
If XR became 30tph, 4tph services would become 6tph and 2tph services would become 3tph.
GWR would have nothing stopping between Slough and OOC as a result of the changes above.
In terms of other Chiltern services, I’d say 2tph Marylebone to Gerrards Cross calling everywhere and also 2tph Marylebone to Banbury calling at WCX then all stations from Denham to Banbury. For the fast services, 2tph to Oxford would become 3tph with one service calling at High Wycombe, one at HDM and one at Islip. All would call at BIV, OXP & obviously Oxford. Stratford-upon-Avon would get a 1tph London service calling at Stratford Parkway, Wilmcote then all stops to Banbury then Bicester North then non stop to Marylebone. Birmingham would retain 2tph, but both would go through to Snow Hill. One would just call at Banbury, Leamington Spa, Warwick Parkway and Solihull with the other calling at those places plus High Wycombe and Dorridge. Aylesbury to Princes Risborough would be a simple shuttle unless XR High Wycombe services were extended. I’ve not figured out what I want for the Amersham side, though I know that East West Rail would be part of it.
CBlue
Member
No 140mph services this time?
Yeah don’t worry I’ve realised how everything about that is just... no
Don't all these plans to send Crossrail trains up the Chiltern line all fall over at the first hurdle, which is that there won't be a connection to the Chiltern line? My understanding is that HS2 construction severs the current link and that the current plans for Chiltern at Old Oak Common are similar to the Overground in that it will be a nearby station with a walking route to Old Oak Common station itself?
clagmonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 2,442
I do think there is merit in looking to extend the Padd terminators further west. Both Chiltern and WCML stopping services have been looked at from the past, and at an initial glance from my viewpoint as an ignorant northern both seem to make sense.
The trouble with taking over the Ruislip branch of the Central is that one of the main Central line depots is at Ruislip. I think it unlikely that Hainault would be able to cope with all maintenance requirements and it would leave you short of stabling space too, even allowing for the fact that the curtailed service at the western end would need a few less trains.
Wembley Stadium station is a major part of the transport infrastructure for large crowds from events at the football ground. I highly doubt that Wembley Park and Wembley Central would be able to take the Wembley Stadium passengers between them.
Having the Paddington terminators starting from OOC (as currently planned) provides a lot of capacity to clear London-bound passengers off HS2 trains. Euston would be overwhelmed without this facility. If you remove capacity on these trains at OOC by starting them back elsewhere and filling them up with commuters from outer London, you will overload the trains from OOC onwards. Also you will need additional rolling stock for each service extended beyond OOC.
@CW2 's point there in #57 is about beyond OOC. Extension to OOC = good as a lot of passengers will board there heading into London. Extension beyond = problems with crowding and needing more rolling stock.
oh yeah sorry I completely misread that haha
- Status