Chiltern Chairman Challenge - Evergreen 4!

[route:oxford]

I always get a little confused about the relationship between the E-W link and Evergreen phases..

Given planned closure of Aylesbury's largest employer - Lloyds Banking Group (formerly HBOS, formerly Equitable life), the town needs to be linked to Milton Keynes via a regular rail service.

Sometimes when driving around the A43, M1, M25 & M40 it seems that every road sign points to Aylesbury - trouble is that when you get onto the roads (apart from the A41 South of Aylesbury) they're all very poor country affairs with inadequate public transport options.

 

[Chafford1]

I always get a little confused about the relationship between the E-W link and Evergreen phases..

Given planned closure of Aylesbury's largest employer - Lloyds Banking Group (formerly HBOS, formerly Equitable life), the town needs to be linked to Milton Keynes via a regular rail service.

Sometimes when driving around the A43, M1, M25 & M40 it seems that every road sign points to Aylesbury - trouble is that when you get onto the roads (apart from the A41 South of Aylesbury) they're all very poor country affairs with inadequate public transport options.

The attached explains the relationship:

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/news/documents/PRESSRELEASE-EWRC150110.pdf

 

[The Planner]

East West is still a long way off as a seperate venture, infact I wouldnt be suprised if Chiltern just dont go it alone and re-open Bicester/Aylesbury-Claydon-Bletchley on their own. Post 2012 it opens up a lot of options for them, Oxford - MK - Northampton, Aylesbury - Bedford and possibly more.

 

[cle]

Bumping this as curious if there had been any news or updates, especially now that work on Evergreen 3 is very much underway - the Birmingham/mainline bits anyway!

 

[Gareth Marston]

How about some chords linking the Soho East to Perry Barr line with the Snow Hill - Galton Bridge line this would open up a whole new load of opportunity's from Wolverhampton and Walsall (and beyond) into Birmingham Snow Hill and avoiding the congested New St area and the constrained twin track Stour Valley.

 

[The Planner]

Wolverhampton and Walsall are hardly devoid of train services to need infrastructure to get more. Wolves has 10tph as it is. Soho North would knacker that anyway as it would need some serious work as its 10mph round the curve and decimates capacity.

I can see EG4 being more Oxford/Aylesbury - Milton Keynes related if anything.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Wolverhampton and Walsall are hardly devoid of train services to need infrastructure to get more. Wolves has 10tph as it is. Soho North would knacker that anyway as it would need some serious work as its 10mph round the curve and decimates capacity.

I can see EG4 being more Oxford/Aylesbury - Milton Keynes related if anything.

I was thinking along the lines of diverting services to free capacity/increase flexibility on the other corridors more than creating yet more.

 

[Ivo]

Wouldn't Branson have a bit of a moan if they started proposing The Planner's EG4 before the current VWC franchise expires? After all, it would give passengers in MK a third option to London

Seriously though, Oxford/Aylesbury to MK is the way to go for EG4. With some careful manipulation, it could potentially lead to an almost cross-country route from Bristol and the South West right through to Bedford, which would almost realise the EW plan. If only Cambridgeshire were in the real world and had decided that the Busway was as much a waste of money as... well, the Busway!

 

[cle]

I agree - doubt VWC would care that much, I think it's more LM's bread and butter.

And couldn't they just continue from Bicester onwards? The line is there, but would need doubling and replacing. Equally up to Quainton Road too.

I suppose Chiltern would need some kind of exclusivity on the line in order to recoup their investment - although I suspect freight would play a huge part too. If they were allowed to run down to Reading, that would be good, although they will have their own platforms at Oxford too. The other way, if not running to MKC, then beyond Bedford up the MML would make sense, maybe to Nottingham.

And I wonder how the journey time would compare from Oxford to Stoke, via MK and Trent Valley, than via Birmingham? Could be a new route for Bournemouth - Manchester services? Lots of possibilities. One thing is that I don't see it going east of Bedford for a long time though!

 

[tbtc]

I suppose Chiltern would need some kind of exclusivity on the line in order to recoup their investment

There'd be some irony if Chiltern built a new line to compete with existing London - Milton Keynes services, but wanted "exclusivity" on their line...

 

[cle]

I meant exclusivity on East-West services, which would be about new journeys/suppressed demand, and competing against the car.

I doubt anyone else would be interested in Marylebone - Aylesbury - Milton Keynes anyway, it'd take about an hour longer than Virgin.

 

[The Planner]

It wouldnt be end to end journeys Chiltern would be interested in, one train catering for London to Aylesbury and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes markets.

 

[A0]

I suspect they may struggle to get the paths between Bletchley and Milton Keynes.

Fast lines are pretty much full with Virgin WC services - relatively few LM services are seen on the fasts.

Slow lines have a mix of LM, Southern and freight services.

Perhaps a better proposal would be to take over the Bedford - Bletchley route? Running Aylesbury - Bletchley - Bedford. That way LM would divest itself of a small diesel operated service, so all of its DMU services would be concentrated in the West Mids.

Given there are currently 4 trains / hour between Bletchley and MKC, connections to MKC wouldn't be a problem.

 

[The Planner]

No way of connecting at Bletchley, unless they resurrect the binned plan to put a platform on the flyover you can't change trains. You could get them off the flyover and up/down the slows without too much hassle and stick them in the bay at MK (which is what it was orignially planned for anyway)

 

[route:oxford]

"Change at Bletchley for the Virgin-Chiltern Connect Service to Heathrow Airport"


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No way of connecting at Bletchley, unless they resurrect the binned plan to put a platform on the flyover you can't change trains.

What happened with services back in the olden days when trains ran to Bletchley from Oxford? Was there a different station?

Not being very familiar with Bletchley, for years I'd had the vision in mind of some form of strange platforms hanging off the side of a viaduct when "platforms on the flyover" were mentioned with access via lifts...

But I see from street-view that the "flyover" behind the station (where I'd guess the "flyover" platforms would be built isn't really that far off the ground.

 

[A0]

I suspect that the cross between Bedford and Oxford trains was on the level? The WCML would have had lower linespeeds and probably fewer trains then so it was probably viable.

As far as I'm aware only freight has ever used the flyover.

 

[andyfrommk]

What happened with services back in the olden days when trains ran to Bletchley from Oxford? Was there a different station?

I remember reading that there were no direct trains from Oxford to Cambridge, instead there were bay platforms for the Oxford service just by the signal box

The Blue Lines enclose where the tracks were, these were platforms 1 and 2 but all the platforms have since been renumbered.

My parents owned the cafe on Bletchley station from 1985 to 1994 and I remember playing on the heap of building refuse dumped on the trackbed between the Oxford platforms.

 

[Southern Steve]

I should think that capacity constraints between Neasden and Marylebone, and at Marylebone itself, would be an obstacle to the more ambitious plans for expansion. If they could be overcome, I'd suggest electrification of the Aylesbury route (and perhaps beyond to Bletchley?), and the takeover by Chiltern of the current Metropolitan Line services north of Moor Park. This would provide longer-distance commuters with faster, more comfortable trains (with first-class accommodation) into central London, and free-up capaciry on the Metropolitan, with increased services on the Uxbridge and Watford branches, with the possibilty of more non-stop (i.e. Harrow to Finchley Road) services from those destinations. There might also be scope for a sub-surface pedestrian link from Marylebone to the Circle/H&C and Jubilee line platforms at Baker Street to improve onward connections for Chiltern passengers.

 

[Zoe]

If they could be overcome, I'd suggest electrification of the Aylesbury route (and perhaps beyond to Bletchley?), and the takeover by Chiltern of the current Metropolitan Line services north of Moor Park.

This would require Chiltern to stop at Moor Park though for interchange, something they don't seem very interested in doing.

 

[Southern Steve]

This would require Chiltern to stop at Moor Park though for interchange, something they don't seem very interested in doing.

Yes, though there could also be some faster trains not stopping there. A sample off-peak service pattern could be (ex-Marylebone):

4 tph Harrow then all stops to Amersham with 2tph extended to Aylesbury Parkway (and possibly Milton Keynes Central)
1 tph Harrow then non-stop to Amersham then all stops to Aylesbury or Aylesbury Parkway (and possibly Milton Keynes Central)

This would mean, though, no through trains to Chesham, and its revering to a branch shuttle.

 

[bluenoxid]

Yes, though there could also be some faster trains not stopping there. A sample off-peak service pattern could be (ex-Marylebone):

4 tph Harrow then all stops to Amersham with 2tph extended to Aylesbury Parkway (and possibly Milton Keynes Central)
1 tph Harrow then non-stop to Amersham then all stops to Aylesbury or Aylesbury Parkway (and possibly Milton Keynes Central)

This would mean, though, no through trains to Chesham, and its revering to a branch shuttle.

Requiring an 8 carriage bay to be built.

 

[Daimler]

Post deleted - ignore

 

[Ivo]

Could the service not be altered to run as thus:

6tph ex-Marylebone, all non-stop to Harrow; then
2tph fast to Moor Park, then all to Chesham
2tph fast to Moor Park, then all to Aylesbury
2tph fast to Amersham, then Aylesbury, then all to MKC

 

[barrykas]

This would require Chiltern to stop at Moor Park though for interchange, something they don't seem very interested in doing.

Chiltern haven't stopped regularly at Moor Park for several years. In fact, I believe I'm right in saying Moor Park was dropped before privatisation!

I'm also led to believe that, on the rare occasions they do stop there, they require what LU call "assisted dispatch", even though the platforms are perfectly straight! (Or that's how they appear on the Google aerial view anyway).

Cheers,

Barry

 

[150219]

Chiltern haven't stopped regularly at Moor Park for several years. In fact, I believe I'm right in saying Moor Park was dropped before privatisation!

I'm also led to believe that, on the rare occasions they do stop there, they require what LU call "assisted dispatch", even though the platforms are perfectly straight! (Or that's how they appear on the Google aerial view anyway).

Cheers,

Barry

Quite correct - Moor Park ceased being served by timetabled Chiltern line services around 1990-1991. One of the problems with Moor Park is that (along with Rickmansworth) the platform can only accomodate 5 car trains.

Services that do stop specially at Moor Park require to be dispatched because there is no DOO equipment for Chiltern services.

 

[cle]

Could the service not be altered to run as thus:

6tph ex-Marylebone, all non-stop to Harrow; then
2tph fast to Moor Park, then all to Chesham
2tph fast to Moor Park, then all to Aylesbury
2tph fast to Amersham, then Aylesbury, then all to MKC

I think this completely works.

Moor Park and Rickmansworth would need platform extensions. I would hope that Ricky was in the pipeline already though? Moor Park wouldn't be a problem at the London end.

And to this, how about 2tph stopping Watford Junction - Chesham?

 

[Ivo]

Funny you should say that.

Some time ago (I'm not digging it out; I'll just re-attach it) I posted a whole timetable for a combined Met/Chiltern service out of Baker Street. Obviously it was just for fun (especially given everything uses Baker Street!), but that was one of the things I included. Also included is a stop at West Hampstead, as well as Neasden for the Met services, but no Finchley Road.

See what you make of it.

 

[Waddon]

Personally, I think the electric should be extended from Amersham to Aylesbury and Met services extended there instead of Chiltern services, that would give Chiltern a lot more pathways into Marylebone which they could use to increase capacity across their other routes. Would need reconfigured seating on some met stock though for the longer journey! Chiltern could still access their depot via their other line, and maybe run direct Aylesbury- Watford Junction services if the Met extension to Watford Jn ever gets the go-ahead

 

[Mojo]

I'm also led to believe that, on the rare occasions they do stop there, they require what LU call "assisted dispatch", even though the platforms are perfectly straight! (Or that's how they appear on the Google aerial view anyway).

This is because platforms on LU are category A or category B and all platforms at Moor Park are category A.

If the OPO (what NR would call DOO) equipment fails, at category A platforms the whole of the platform train interface cannot be seen by the Train Operator, or the platform is on the other side from the Train Operator's normal driving position, or the train has in-cab platform CCTV, the platform can only remain open if staff are provided to offer assisted dispatch.

If what you have been led to believe is correct (maybe the OPO equipment at Moor Park isn't suitable for Chiltern's trains, or there's some other reason they can't stop next to it) then it's because the platforms are all on the right hand side of the train, whereas the Train Operators at this location sit on the left.

 

[Waddon]

Pity other operators don't have the inventiveness and energy of Chiltern when it comes to development... I have a scheme in mind for Southern / South West trains thats almost identical to what Chiltern are doing around Banbury (just a short chord line between two existing lines to open up a whole range of new transport options) but theres no point in just randomly sending it in, because it will just get ignored!