LUL take over services to Aylesbury

[ChiefPlanner]

S8 stock are excellent trains

They are a worthy and excellent replacement for the dreadful C69 etc stock on the Circle etc lines , - but out to the reaches of the Chilterns might be a challenge for the generally well heeled travellers (peak and off peak) north of Amersham ...especially with lateral seating of low density.

Anyway - be assured , not going to happen in my view.

 

[zwk500]

However, central government is paying for the London-Amersham-Aylesbury diesel service (and track maintenance) at present, so presumably this money could be transferred to TfL. This then leaves the actual electrification cost, which central government could pay for as part of an upgrade (which they would have to do if the line was electrified to Network Rail standards).

If TfL is being expected to pay for the electrification, and the ongoing service/maintenance subsidies then, no, it is not going to happen. But it doesn't have to be on those terms.

I don't know if you've seen the recent spat, but the DfT are extremely unlikely to transfer anything to TfL on terms that involve the DfT handing over so much as a shiny penny to TfL.

 

[RT4038]

I don't know if you've seen the recent spat, but the DfT are extremely unlikely to transfer anything to TfL on terms that involve the DfT handing over so much as a shiny penny to TfL.

The spat is political, and that may well change in the future............

 

[zwk500]

The spat is political, and that may well change in the future............

Well, the next election could be as late as 2024. The current people in 10 & 11 Downing Street don't seem any keener to prop up TfL with public money than Shapps was.

 

[RT4038]

Well, the next election could be as late as 2024. The current people in 10 & 11 Downing Street don't seem any keener to prop up TfL with public money than Shapps was.

There is no time limitation mentioned in the original post. Metropolitan trains could run to Aylesbury if there was the political will to do it. As we have recently seen, a week is a long time in politics.

 

[zwk500]

There is no time limitation mentioned in the original post. Metropolitan trains could run to Aylesbury if there was the political will to do it.

I admire your optimism. I personally doubt anybody, from any party, will have that will.

As we have recently seen, a week is a long time in politics.

Indeed! This week in particular could feel very long for some people!

 

[Energy]

Amersham to Aylesbury isn't too long of a distance. Using battery (either fitted to s stock or on 710s modified for 4th rail) could be an option.

TfL could also pay for electrification, with the signalling already getting changed and it being 4th rail so not tricky bridges or tunnels it could be pretty cheap. Does the existing feeder station for the section up to Amersham have enough capacity (and a short enough distance) for Aylesbury?

 

[AM9]

Amersham to Aylesbury isn't too long of a distance. Using battery (either fitted to s stock or on 710s modified for 4th rail) could be an option.

TfL could also pay for electrification, with the signalling already getting changed and it being 4th rail so not tricky bridges or tunnels it could be pretty cheap. Does the existing feeder station for the section up to Amersham have enough capacity (and a short enough distance) for Aylesbury?

I doubt if there would be enough return from running extended services to persuade TfL to foot the cost of electrification. Then there's the ORR to persuade that love conductors at ground level are safe enough.

 

[JonathanH]

There is quite a difference between the LUL approach to infrastructure and that on the Network Rail network further north. Would fourth rail electrification come with the cabling that runs at a visible level alongside LUL lines?

 

[David Goddard]

If it is about electrification, then the state should be paying as removing the diesel from Marylebone comes with a great environmental benefit.

However, I don't agree with extending the 4th rail further. The whole Chiltern network should be completely electrified with 25kV AC, with the 4th rail scrapped between Amersham and Harrow-on-the-Hill after the S-stock becomes life expired (which will be replaced with bi-mode trains afterwards), paid by the state.

And the Aylesbury operation should remain with Chiltern, as it goes too far out from London.

Completely agree, but would not wait until the S stock is retired (that would kick it down the road another thirty years)
Chiltern can then take over the whole service north of Harrow on the Hill, including Chesham at Watford branches, with overhead powered EMUs.

 

[MarkyT]

Completely agree, but would not wait until the S stock is retired (that would kick it down the road another thirty years)
Chiltern can then take over the whole service north of Harrow on the Hill, including Chesham at Watford branches, with overhead powered EMUs.

Splitting the fasts off under AC OHLE would be plausible technically, with Met stoppers to Watford remaining on the slow pair powered by 4-rail DC, but I think there would be much protest from Residents north of Moor Park, and they would all have to change somewhere to travel to intermediate stations not served by the fasts. I'd put an additional Moor Park stop into all the fast stopping patterns to achieve this, and Watford connectivity from the north. Please note I'm not advocating this course of action. As far as the current rolling stock decarb and signalling strategies are concerned, waiting for the S stock to expire is a non-starter. There's clearly no way the turbos could be made to last another 30 years, even if the hybridisation project proves completely successful.

 

[miklcct]

The Overground is certainly useful, and a big improvement on what went before, but it’s also painfully slow and doesn’t really serve central areas.

The Overground isn't there to serve central areas - it is the job of the Underground and also the various lines which are managed by the compass point companies at the moment. It is a complement to the Underground, filling the gaps where the Underground can't serve well.

The Overground is the de-facto Orbirail which allows journey opportunities avoiding central London, although Shoreditch High Street has ruined the possibility of a complete loop within zone 2.

And I don't see how the Overground is slower than the Underground as well. Overground and Underground are both metro networks performing the same function - mass transport inside a city which the compass point companies have failed us - the difference being one running on the national network, one isn't.

 

[JonathanH]

The Overground is the de-facto Orbirail which allows journey opportunities avoiding central London, although Shoreditch High Street has ruined the possibility of a complete loop within zone 2.

The Jubilee Line, and Elizabeth Line in five week's time) both allow easy avoidance of Shoreditch High Street.

 

[43066]

The Overground isn't there to serve central areas - it is the job of the Underground and also the various lines which are managed by the compass point companies at the moment. It is a complement to the Underground, filling the gaps where the Underground can't serve well.

The Overground is the de-facto Orbirail which allows journey opportunities avoiding central London, although Shoreditch High Street has ruined the possibility of a complete loop within zone 2.

And I don't see how the Overground is slower than the Underground as well. Overground and Underground are both metro networks performing the same function - mass transport inside a city which the compass point companies have failed us - the difference being one running on the national network, one isn't.

I’m glad you agree with me that the Overground is slow and doesn’t serve central areas.

I suppose the compass-point-companies comment has some merit when you consider that the “Northern Line” includes the most southerly tube station, but not the most northerly, and the “Central Line” includes both the longest possible tube journey and the only true “tube” station outside the M25…

 

[miklcct]

I’m glad you agree with me that the Overground is slow and doesn’t serve central areas.

I suppose the compass-point-companies comment has some merit when you consider that the “Northern Line” includes the most southerly tube station, but not the most northerly, and the “Central Line” includes both the longest possible tube journey and the only true “tube” station outside the M25…

Fast trains which don't stop in zones 2, 3 and 4 have no use if one requires a destination in zone 2. Unless one is heading to the the city centre or the opposite side the city, it is almost always better to use a slow train to zone 2 and change to the Overground from there avoiding zone 1.

 

[bramling]

TfL wasn’t responsible for London Overground being created in the first instance, and if it disappeared tomorrow another body would manage it. The Overground is certainly useful, and a big improvement on what went before, but it’s also painfully slow and doesn’t really serve central areas.

Southern only serves a limited part of South London, and which Southern metro services are in a “dire state”? I’ve always found them perfectly acceptable. The metro services I use (not Southern but their immediately adjacent operator to the east) are extremely reliable, regular and take me straight to where I want to go. It really isn’t a case of “TfL good, TOCs bad”.

I’ve never really got this love-in for the Overground.

We know the North London Line is better now than under Silverlink, but that’s because a lot of money was made available to it.

Can’t see what’s majorly wrong with many of the London TOC suburban routes. The GN routes from Moorgate are perfectly fine, as does Southern and SWR. Chiltern’s suburban stations are virtually an irrelevance due to their proximity to LU stations, and probably always will be.

This of course leaves Southeastern, which is the exception and certainly does feel neglected. But a lot of this revolves around the state of the rolling stock and stations, something the TOC could easily fix if the DFT wanted it to. Operationally the service seems fine. Surely it doesn’t make much difference if the money for station improvements comes from the DFT or the mayoralty?

All LO seems to have done for the West Anglia is lock in a particular pattern of services. It’s rather odd that one has TFL from Southbury or Lower Edmonton, but not Brimsdown or Lea Bridge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2022 ==



I remember making the (long) drive to Southend years ago and being so appalled by what we saw when we got there that we turned around and drove away again, without even getting out of the car!

I must admit to having been there twice recently for a ride on the (old) pier trains, but it’s the sort of place where one ideally wants to minimise any time spent doing anything other than the target activity. We parked at Shoeburyness and took the train in to Southend itself as I begrudge paying £18 for half a day’s parking, and it was a bit of an eye-opener to have a heavy “security” presence at Southend Central station at 1030 on a Monday. That kind of said it all really. Have to say the pier isn’t bad though, it’s just unfortunate that it’s in Southend!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2022 ==

They are a worthy and excellent replacement for the dreadful C69 etc stock on the Circle etc lines , - but out to the reaches of the Chilterns might be a challenge for the generally well heeled travellers (peak and off peak) north of Amersham ...especially with lateral seating of low density.

Anyway - be assured , not going to happen in my view.

I can’t see much changing on the Amersham route for the time being. They could just as easily have a sub-fleet or bi-mode diesels should the rest of Chiltern get electrified. My gut feeling is Chiltern isn’t going to get electrified for some time to come, which is unfortunate as it would seem a worthy candidate, and could have been the ideal place for many of the current surplus EMUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clacton is no different nor Blackpool, it's just a "working class" seaside thing.

 

[Mikey C]

Southend is fine. And being an incredibly convenient commuter town for the "normal money" City workers, it's far less reliant on tourism than the other faded seaside resorts.

 

[43066]

We know the North London Line is better now than under Silverlink, but that’s because a lot of money was made available to it.

Exactly, and liberal slathering of TfL and slightly sinister “Mayor of London” branding over every flat surface doesn’t change that reality.

I’ve never really got this love-in for the Overground.

We know the North London Line is better now than under Silverlink, but that’s because a lot of money was made available to it.

Can’t see what’s majorly wrong with many of the London TOC suburban routes. The GN routes from Moorgate are perfectly fine, as does Southern and SWR. Chiltern’s suburban stations are virtually an irrelevance due to their proximity to LU stations, and probably always will be.

This of course leaves Southeastern, which is the exception and certainly does feel neglected. But a lot of this revolves around the state of the rolling stock and stations, something the TOC could easily fix if the DFT wanted it to. Operationally the service seems fine. Surely it doesn’t make much difference if the money for station improvements comes from the DFT or the mayoralty?

All LO seems to have done for the West Anglia is lock in a particular pattern of services. It’s rather odd that one has TFL from Southbury or Lower Edmonton, but not Brimsdown or Lea Bridge.

Agreed. Neglected but operationally fine is a very good way of summing up Southeastern metro. Based on my experiences of using both to get to work, SE is consistently more reliable than Thameslink.

I must admit to having been there twice recently for a ride on the (old) pier trains, but it’s the sort of place where one ideally wants to minimise any time spent doing anything other than the target activity. We parked at Shoeburyness and took the train in to Southend itself as I begrudge paying £18 for half a day’s parking, and it was a bit of an eye-opener to have a heavy “security” presence at Southend Central station at 1030 on a Monday. That kind of said it all really. Have to say the pier isn’t bad though, it’s just unfortunate that it’s in Southend!

The pier does indeed look interesting but, exactly as you say, it’s a long way to travel just for that the given the immediate surroundings.

Clacton is no different nor Blackpool, it's just a "working class" seaside thing.

By far the best thing about Clacton is its difficult to spot, short and challenging airstrip! The town is nothing to write home about but wasn’t too bad from a brief visit.

Blackpool I’m sorry to say seemed to be an utter toilet of a place on my visit a few years ago, with obvious and significant deprivation and drug and alcohol abuse issues.

 

[Bakerloo]

And I don't see how the Overground is slower than the Underground as well.

Overground trains accelerate out of stations very slowly. They also enter stations very slowly. I honestly don't understand why they're so slow, they'd likely get better capacity if they accelerated more

 

[philthetube]

I just can't see a 4th rail extension of that size being economic, let alone permitted by the ORR. Also, would S Stock be able to keep to the current timings, and would you keep the current mix of service patterns or just move to an Every train/All Stations model?

S Stock would be able to operate the service much more quickly than Chiltern's diesels, both because of faster acceleration and braking, particularly if LUL driving styles were adapted, also as previously mentioned they could be "opened up" to allow higher speeds. When a S stock train is currently following a Diesel north from Rickmansworth the S Stock train is constantly being checked at signals.

Completely agree, but would not wait until the S stock is retired (that would kick it down the road another thirty years)
Chiltern can then take over the whole service north of Harrow on the Hill, including Chesham at Watford branches, with overhead powered EMUs.

When the S Stock was arriving it struck me that it would have been sense to have been dual voltage, with space for a pantograph

 

[bramling]

Overground trains accelerate out of stations very slowly. They also enter stations very slowly. I honestly don't understand why they're so slow, they'd likely get better capacity if they accelerated more

There is never going to be LU style of driving on Overground for as long as it is signalled and operated as a conventional railway. A more rushed way of working is more acceptable on LU due to features such as continuous ATP, train stops, full-speed overlaps on signals, correct side door enable protection, etc.

Mainline lacks these safety features, so drivers have to take extra time to prevent mistakes for which there aren’t engineered safeguards.

That said, LU has become less tolerant of operational errors over the last couple of decades, and particularly on the remaining manually driven lines it is quite easy to have an incident.

 

[12LDA28C]

Just come across this thread, and nobody seems to have mentioned that Aylesbury is not the northernmost point for Chiltern services that run via Amersham. Aylesbury Vale Parkway around 2 1/2 miles north of Aylesbury is served by over 50% of Chiltern services on the route so any extension of LU operation would have to reach AVP.

Of course, extension of LU services to Aylesbury has been mooted for years and nothing has or will ever come of it, in my opinion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

Completely agree, but would not wait until the S stock is retired (that would kick it down the road another thirty years)
Chiltern can then take over the whole service north of Harrow on the Hill, including Chesham at Watford branches, with overhead powered EMUs.

Hahahaaaaaaa, that's very amusing.

I don't expect to see the Chiltern routes electrified in my lifetime and indeed CR are currently inviting manufacturers to submit potential options for replacement of their current fleet with bi-mode / hybrid units being the most likely solution. Even new-build DMUs would have an environmental advantage over the Class 165/168 in terms of emissions etc.

 

[cle]

When it does come to electrification - and I agree that eve though the case is strong, the money is absent and the polticial landscape a sh-tshow - I would think wires would spell the end of the Met line to Amersham and Chesham.

A Moor Park stop could be comfortably fit with electric running, it will be far faster. Frequent stops and hilly terrain are the perfect % fodder for electrification.

Frequency combined would need looking at. Folks at Chorleywood and Ricky for instance, are used to semi-TUAG tube services.

I would think:
2tph Aylesbury VP: first stop Harrow, Rickmansworth, (Chalfont), Amersham...all stations
2tph Chesham: Harrow, Moor Park, all stations
2tph Amersham: Harrow, Moor Park, all stations (peak extensions to Aylesbury)

Not sure you'd get much more out of Marylebone, but maybe this happens after some of the OOC changes (if those ever did)

Direct all Met services on that route into Watford (up-gauge frequency somewhat with the spare stock) - and the same for Uxbridge - to give a much neater route for the Met. Ricky will need platforms work. A real shame it couldn't be Watford Junction (with a WFJ-Chesham shuttle instead!)

 

[miklcct]

I would think:
2tph Aylesbury VP: first stop Harrow, Rickmansworth, (Chalfont), Amersham...all stations
2tph Chesham: Harrow, Moor Park, all stations
2tph Amersham: Harrow, Moor Park, all stations (peak extensions to Aylesbury)

It seems to be a good idea that, in this case, the fast lines between Harrow and Amersham will be handed to Network Rail. However, all 6tph should call at all stations along the line, i.e. Marylebone, Harrow, Moor Park, all stations to their destinations, to make the line a truly turn-up-and-go service south of Chalfont with an even 10-minute headway, and for an easy change at Moor Park for the Metropolitan line.

 

[Mikey C]

Surely there isn't the capacity at Marylebone or the twin tracks out of the station to allow a really intensive service on the Amersham route to replace the current Underground service?

 

[12LDA28C]

Surely there isn't the capacity at Marylebone or the twin tracks out of the station to allow a really intensive service on the Amersham route to replace the current Underground service?

Indeed not.


I thought the premise of this thread was the potential for extension of LU services from Baker Street through to Aylesbury (& Vale Parkway), not Chiltern running more trains out of Marylebone to replace or supplement LU services.

 

[cle]

Indeed not.


I thought the premise of this thread was the potential for extension of LU services from Baker Street through to Aylesbury (& Vale Parkway), not Chiltern running more trains out of Marylebone to replace or supplement LU services.

I believe it was. But running the tube to Aylesbury Vale Parkway seems absurd. I know it happened 100 years ago. And would requirre 4th rail electrification, so begs the question if that is the right capital investment.

Surely there isn't the capacity at Marylebone or the twin tracks out of the station to allow a really intensive service on the Amersham route to replace the current Underground service?

I think we're assuming that any wires up and tube-handoff might happen around OOC having Chiltern bays and moving 4tph out of Marylebone, or at least 1-2.

But in general, I would think 2 dedicated platforms to the Harrow route would be fine for 6tph easily. And 4 platforms for the rest of the route. New, consolidated stock and more interworking would be tighter. Fenchurch St does way more with standardization. No locos or trolleys tho

It seems to be a good idea that, in this case, the fast lines between Harrow and Amersham will be handed to Network Rail. However, all 6tph should call at all stations along the line, i.e. Marylebone, Harrow, Moor Park, all stations to their destinations, to make the line a truly turn-up-and-go service south of Chalfont with an even 10-minute headway, and for an easy change at Moor Park for the Metropolitan line.

I like the idea in theory - just wondered about maybe having a quicker Aylesbury journey - maybe with electric running, it wouldn't be slower vs some of the peak fasts that exist today. And 1-2 of those could remain - or trial a fast run via High Wycombe.

 

[CyrusWuff]

To get a faster journey to Aylesbury via Amersham, you'd at least need to install additional signals between Amersham and Aylesbury, as it's currently little changed from LU days.

Additionally, I believe Chiltern can't call at Moor Park without a member of LU staff being present to assist with dispatch. Something to do with the DOO equipment I believe.

 

[12LDA28C]

To get a faster journey to Aylesbury via Amersham, you'd at least need to install additional signals between Amersham and Aylesbury, as it's currently little changed from LU days.

Additionally, I believe Chiltern can't call at Moor Park without a member of LU staff being present to assist with dispatch. Something to do with the DOO equipment I believe.

The only DOO equipment left in place between Harrow and Amersham is for use by Chiltern drivers, LU haven't used it since the introduction of S-stock as the trains have dedicated on-board cameras for self-dispatch by the operator. The DOO mirrors at Moor Park have long since been removed and as the platform is on the non-drivers side, DOO dispatch is not possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2022 ==

I believe it was. But running the tube to Aylesbury Vale Parkway seems absurd. I know it happened 100 years ago. And would requirre 4th rail electrification, so begs the question if that is the right capital investment.


I think we're assuming that any wires up and tube-handoff might happen around OOC having Chiltern bays and moving 4tph out of Marylebone, or at least 1-2.

But in general, I would think 2 dedicated platforms to the Harrow route would be fine for 6tph easily. And 4 platforms for the rest of the route. New, consolidated stock and more interworking would be tighter. Fenchurch St does way more with standardization. No locos or trolleys tho


I like the idea in theory - just wondered about maybe having a quicker Aylesbury journey - maybe with electric running, it wouldn't be slower vs some of the peak fasts that exist today. And 1-2 of those could remain - or trial a fast run via High Wycombe.

Line speed between Harrow and Amersham would still be limited to 60mph which is the maximum permitted with tripcock/train stop safety equipment in use. Any marginal improvement in train running times would purely be down to faster acceleration away from station stops but outweighed by the 60mph maximum permitted speed north of Amersham where it is currently 75mph.

Again, electrification of the Chiltern routes out of Marylebone is beyond unlikely in the next 50 years plus, if ever.