Examples Where Projects Could Have Delivered Significantly More Without Spending More Than "5%" More

[A0]

I think its been mentioned but electrification of the Thames Valley branch lines, especially the Windsor branch. You've got turbos running around from West Ealing, Slough, Maidenhead & Twyford which would much easier be 387 4-cars to have a unified fleet and allow turbos to be cascaded further west, and improve loadings as required. The extra cost must not have been that prohibitive for the overall gain.

The problem with most of those is platform lengths - the Greenford branch has definitely got short platforms and Maidenhead - Marlow was discussed on another thread not so long ago.

Even 3 car EMUs (which would be sub-fleet) would be a struggle on some of those - it's why they're run using 2 car DMUs.

 

[Ianno87]

I think its been mentioned but electrification of the Thames Valley branch lines, especially the Windsor branch. You've got turbos running around from West Ealing, Slough, Maidenhead & Twyford which would much easier be 387 4-cars to have a unified fleet and allow turbos to be cascaded further west, and improve loadings as required. The extra cost must not have been that prohibitive for the overall gain.

The problem with most of those is platform lengths - the Greenford branch has definitely got short platforms and Maidenhead - Marlow was discussed on another thread not so long ago.

Even 3 car EMUs (which would be sub-fleet) would be a struggle on some of those - it's why they're run using 2 car DMUs.

Was the Bourne End "problem" ever solved?

If DMUs had to be kept to cover that due to lack of a feasible solution, then the economics of wiring the other branches quickly diminish as a result.

 

[Horizon22]

The problem with most of those is platform lengths - the Greenford branch has definitely got short platforms and Maidenhead - Marlow was discussed on another thread not so long ago.

Even 3 car EMUs (which would be sub-fleet) would be a struggle on some of those - it's why they're run using 2 car DMUs.

Agree that's some additional spend, but the Windsor branch I think definitely would fit into the spirit of this thread. Maidenhead branch with its token working is a different matter and probably the most difficult.

 

[A0]

Agree that's some additional spend, but the Windsor branch I think definitely would fit into the spirit of this thread. Maidenhead branch with its token working is a different matter and probably the most difficult.

I think you're right, Windsor probably was the easiest - Maidenhead with the reversal for Marlow is a real problem and the Greenford line has short platforms and currently the intermediate stations all fall in the 15 least used stations in London category. Quite what practical future there is for the Greenford branch, I'm not sure. It can't run into Paddington, it's platforms are short, Greenford itself is hardly a destination and I doubt there's going to be any capacity for it when the NNML runs to Old Oak Common - in that sense it won't be quick or cheap upgrades which means it doesn't fall into this one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you're right, Windsor probably was the easiest - Maidenhead with the reversal for Marlow is a real problem and the Greenford line has short platforms and currently the intermediate stations all fall in the 15 least used stations in London category. Quite what practical future there is for the Greenford branch, I'm not sure. It can't run into Paddington, it's platforms are short, Greenford itself is hardly a destination and I doubt there's going to be any capacity for it when the NNML runs to Old Oak Common - in that sense it won't be quick or cheap upgrades which means it doesn't fall into this one.

It doesn't actually run on the NNML so far as I'm aware, it ducks under/bridges over (can't see which from the OS map but it does one of the two) and runs into a bay in the Tube station. Assuming it wasn't to be closed, the cheapest option is probably just to lengthen the platforms, wire it and run it as-is with an EMU.

I'd probably agree that Windsor is probably the only one of the Thames branches that would be a quick win, though.

 

[A0]

It doesn't actually run on the NNML so far as I'm aware, it ducks under/bridges over (can't see which from the OS map but it does one of the two) and runs into a bay in the Tube station. Assuming it wasn't to be closed, the cheapest option is probably just to lengthen the platforms, wire it and run it as-is with an EMU.

No it doesn't, but it *could* - in fact there were platforms on the NNML many years ago.

It's the route the parliamentary West Ealing to Wycombe takes, which replaced the Paddington - Wycombe one.

Won't be easy to extend the Greenford platform and the tunnel clearance at Castle Bar Park looks tight too - check Youtube videos of the DMUs coming through there.

 

[zwk500]

It doesn't actually run on the NNML so far as I'm aware, it ducks under/bridges over (can't see which from the OS map but it does one of the two) and runs into a bay in the Tube station. Assuming it wasn't to be closed, the cheapest option is probably just to lengthen the platforms and run it as-is with an EMU.

It ducks under a bridge then climbs up to the bay. Not sure lengthening the bay platform will be particularly cheap. The branch itself will remain open for freight, as covered by other threads. Unless something more dramatic is done to boost usage, cheapest thing long-term would probably be to withdraw the service completely, but that's probably politically unacceptable. Full electrification is unlikely until the Chiltern is wired as well, in which case the extra for the infill might well be worth 5% of the total for a quite good strategic benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It ducks under a bridge then climbs up to the bay. Not sure lengthening the bay platform will be particularly cheap. The branch itself will remain open for freight, as covered by other threads. Unless something more dramatic is done to boost usage, cheapest thing long-term would probably be to withdraw the service completely, but that's probably politically unacceptable. Full electrification is unlikely until the Chiltern is wired as well, in which case the extra for the infill might well be worth 5% of the total for a quite good strategic benefit.

You may well have the answer to it there - if it became a GWR diesel island, have Chiltern operate it until that's electrified and then sort it.

Might be that battery LRV technology is good enough by then to operate all day without a charge - buses are certainly getting there.

 

[Horizon22]

I think you're right, Windsor probably was the easiest - Maidenhead with the reversal for Marlow is a real problem and the Greenford line has short platforms and currently the intermediate stations all fall in the 15 least used stations in London category. Quite what practical future there is for the Greenford branch, I'm not sure. It can't run into Paddington, it's platforms are short, Greenford itself is hardly a destination and I doubt there's going to be any capacity for it when the NNML runs to Old Oak Common - in that sense it won't be quick or cheap upgrades which means it doesn't fall into this one.

I think it's a big IF the NNML runs to Old Oak, there's definitely not been finalised. The island at Greenford is separated from the rest of the NNML - excepting the junction - which is lower and north of the platforms. But the future of the line is definitely a topic for another thread.

 

[swt_passenger]

Bourne End/Marlow was explicitly removed from GW branch lines project scope, sometime before 2016, (I only have enhancements delivery plans to hand going back to Mar 2016). The Greenford branch was never included in the GW electrification in the first place.

You may well have the answer to it there - if it became a GWR diesel island, have Chiltern operate it until that's electrified and then sort it...

Having Chiltern operate Greenford (even as a diesel island) was assessed by DfT, and they decided it gave no operational advantages over GWR continuing. I linked to the GWR 2018 franchise brief in a recent thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/greenford-branch.211649/#post-4880711