What to do with the Chiltern lines?

[Sad Sprinter]

Given battery technology, that's a waste of time. Easier to have OHL and batteries rather than put 3rd rail down.

That would still require purpose built stock. If third rail is down you could get Electrostars in Marylebone the day after

 

[A0]

That would still require purpose built stock. If third rail is down you could get Electrostars in Marylebone the day after

Which spare dual voltage Electrostars do you have in mind? Bearing in mind there are no spare Electrostars currently, the existing ones are already over 10 years old and the Electrostar platform is now obsolete.

Given any stock for the Chiltern lines will almost certainly be new build, there are already Battery Electric options available e.g. Flirt.

 

[Mikey C]

So someone living in Ruislip wanting to travel towards High Wycombe who currently can use either South or West Ruislip will be forced at a larger cost to use LU services to central London to jump on a Chiltern service which goes non-stop through both Ruislip stations to head towards High Wycombe & beyond?

I can see quite a few saying "bugger that, we will just drive as it's far cheaper & quicker". Especially as the Central Line does have some gaps in frequencies at the western end with trains turning back at Northolt etc.

The number of people travelling between Ruislip and Wycombe will be tiny though. The railways can't cater for every minor journey combination, as all the minor stops on a 2 track railway ultimately lose capacity for running trains between say Marylebone and Wycombe and beyond.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The number of people travelling between Ruislip and Wycombe will be tiny though. The railways can't cater for every minor journey combination, as all the minor stops on a 2 track railway ultimately lose capacity for running trains between say Marylebone and Wycombe and beyond.

I think you could reasonably put one of those stations in the Wycombe stopper without slowing it down too much - an increase to 4tph would offset the disbenefit of this slight slowing. Perhaps you could get away with doing 2 to West Ruislip and 2 to Northolt Park, with Wembley Stadium for event days only (in that case it taking the stops from both of those to give a full 4tph) and closing the other. That way you keep your Tube connectivity.

Would want to survey how many people actually use that first though. Harrow-on-the-Hill is clearly popular (but not popular enough for it not to be dropped from about half the peak Aylesbury services despite those crawling through it so slowly that it might as well stop) but I don't know if Ruislip is as useful.

 

[HSTEd]

If Wembley Stadium station is to be retained, it should probably have its platforms expanded to allow it to handle greater event-day crowds without risking a crush or putting people onto the track.

Couldn't we move the running lines over to the position of the old through lines, then fill in the existing running lines to make the platforms bigger?
Either that, or adopt a "Spanish Solution" Island built in the middle over the top of the old through lines - although I'm not sure if British rolling stock can simultaneously open doors on both sides.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Closing Wembley Stadium would be unwise - it may not be great but it still takes a significant load off the other Wembley stations.

I'm not at Wembley Stadium very often and then very much off-peak, but there are always several people waiting on both platforms; far more so than at other London suburban stations on that line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not at Wembley Stadium very often and then very much off-peak, but there are always several people waiting on both platforms; far more so than at other London suburban stations on that line.

People may use it, but the important question is whether they could painlessly move to either the Met or Watford DC options nearby.

I bet lots of people simply use it because of its name, and would use Wembley Park if it was renamed Wembley Stadium and included in journey planners.

 

[gsc777]

It would be better to electrify Leamington / Stratford - Birmingham Snow Hill - Kidderminster, that would remove a huge number of DMUs from stop/ start journeys through the West Mids. Leave Chiltern as diesel for now as the impact of running 2/3 tph from London - Oxford or Birmingham as diesel is pretty negligible in the scheme of things.

If fast (electrified hopefully) services were to return, could they emulate what Great Northern does with services to Cambridge?

For those who aren't aware, Great Northern runs stopping services along the ECML/Hitchin—Cambridge line that terminate at Cambridge, and runs non-stop fast services between King's Cross and Cambridge, which then become stopping services to King's Lynn along the Fen line (semi-fast London—Cambridge services are the half-hourly Thameslink services to Brighton)

In a similar vein, could they have stopping London—Birmingham services for commuters along the line in Wycombe, Leamington Spa and Solihull. Fast services could run (probably not completely non-stop like the London—Cambridge trains) to Moor St and then extend north either as stopping services to Stourbridge and Kidderminster, or as semi-fast services to Worcester? Gives the people of Worcester a second way of getting into London.

 

[150219]

I think you could reasonably put one of those stations in the Wycombe stopper without slowing it down too much - an increase to 4tph would offset the disbenefit of this slight slowing. Perhaps you could get away with doing 2 to West Ruislip and 2 to Northolt Park, with Wembley Stadium for event days only (in that case it taking the stops from both of those to give a full 4tph) and closing the other. That way you keep your Tube connectivity.

Would want to survey how many people actually use that first though. Harrow-on-the-Hill is clearly popular (but not popular enough for it not to be dropped from about half the peak Aylesbury services despite those crawling through it so slowly that it might as well stop) but I don't know if Ruislip is as useful.

The number of people travelling between Ruislip and Wycombe will be tiny though. The railways can't cater for every minor journey combination, as all the minor stops on a 2 track railway ultimately lose capacity for running trains between say Marylebone and Wycombe and beyond.

The proportion of customers using Ruislip as an interchange is greater than some appreciate, particularly for commuter traffic to/from the Heartlands stations.

 

[SynthD]

If fast (electrified hopefully) services were to return, could they emulate what Great Northern does with services to Cambridge?

They did before covid, where many trains ran non stop to Bicester, some to Banbury (some still do, even off peak), one to Leamington. There aren’t enough passengers from Worcester to steal from GWR at a massive disbenefit to the current Chiltern passengers. If anything, Worcester would be better off calling for a direct service to Birmingham International or Moor St for Curzon St.

 

[Mgameing123]

So Chiltern is currently doing great, all things considered, but with the potential for nationalisation in the near future, what are people's thoughts for what should happen.

For me, a strong priority is electrification of the Marylebone—Moor Street line, which could actually have been a better investment, at least in the short term, than the London—Birmingham leg of HS2 (that money could have instead gone towards the Birmingham—Crewe and beyond, which would have been much more useful, but what do I know?). Electrifying the route to Oxford would be useful but it'll depend on what's happening with EWR. Electrifying the route to Aylesbury would be fantastic too, with the Snow Hill lines getting last priority. Seeing electrified London—Stourbridge/Kidderminster/Worcester would be great to see and a great alternative to GWR. The lines in the Midlands (to Dorridge, Stratford etc) are probably last in terms of electrification priority.

This might be a pipe dream but is there any real way to get Aylesbury onto the Thameslink line? Surely there must be space somewhere for a tunnel onto the Midland Main Line or directly into the Thameslink core. Thameslink stopping services from Aylesbury could be a game changer, with Chiltern opting to run fast London—Aylesbury services and services towards Bletchley and Milton Keynes once EWR is complete.

With EWR, do we know if there are plans solidly in place for the Aylesbury connection? If so, it would also be useful to make the lines to Parkway, and between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough, dual-tracked.

It would be cool to see Chiltern become the primary route from London into Birmingham! It could equally take pressure off LNR and Avanti services if Chiltern can match them, relieving the mess that is the WCML.

Metropolitan Line and Chiltern Trains need to start stopping at West Hempstead . The station has potential to become a major interchange especially if you want to head towards Luton Airport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

So someone living in Ruislip wanting to travel towards High Wycombe who currently can use either South or West Ruislip will be forced at a larger cost to use LU services to central London to jump on a Chiltern service which goes non-stop through both Ruislip stations to head towards High Wycombe & beyond?

I can see quite a few saying "bugger that, we will just drive as it's far cheaper & quicker". Especially as the Central Line does have some gaps in frequencies at the western end with trains turning back at Northolt etc.

Closing West Ruislip and South Ruislip would be a terrible idea especially with the proposals of sending the Central Line to Uxbridge which would be a better terminus than West Ruislip. Closing the Sudbury's isn't a too absurd idea but they should rather introduce a Chiltern Metro service between Gerrards Cross & Marylebone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

People may use it, but the important question is whether they could painlessly move to either the Met or Watford DC options nearby.

I bet lots of people simply use it because of its name, and would use Wembley Park if it was renamed Wembley Stadium and included in journey planners.

I don't think someone living in High Wycombe would want to take a bus to Amersham to catch the Met down to Wembley Park.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

The number of people travelling between Ruislip and Wycombe will be tiny though. The railways can't cater for every minor journey combination, as all the minor stops on a 2 track railway ultimately lose capacity for running trains between say Marylebone and Wycombe and beyond.

People living on the Central Line Ruislip branch are also a trip generator.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

My opinion:

The Chiltern Mainline is more a commuter route than a regional route. Electrification is neccesary and the route needs to get more services especially on the inner suburban stations (The Sudbury's). They should use the Gerrards Cross to Marylebone trains as all stations services to Marylebone.
We also need a station at West Hempstead on both the Chiltern & The Met where ALL trains stop at because West Hampstead would provide easy access to Thameslink and the Jubilee if heading towards Central London but would also provide good access to Luton Airport from the Chilterns and West London.

The Chiltern Mainline also needs the additional terminus at Old Oak Common where the current London to Aylesbury via Wycombe services can divert to with obviously the intent to extend it to Milton Keynes if the EWR Aylesbury branch ever comes.

Perhaps they should even double track the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough line as it is used well by passenger and freight trains and will become even more significant if EWR Aylesbury branch comes.

If Electrification was to come how would they sort out London to Aylesbury via Amersham line? Because it is already gifted with Fourth Rail electrification between Amersham & Harrow On The Hill (On the Chiltern Tracks).
Perhaps the Met should takeover all services to Aylesbury?

 

[JonathanH]

Metropolitan Line and Chiltern Trains need to start stopping at Willesden Junction.

Neither go anywhere near Willesden Junction. I suspect you mean West Hampstead, but Finchley Road isn't far away.

 

[SynthD]

The Chiltern Mainline also needs the additional terminus at Old Oak Common where the current London to Aylesbury via Wycombe services can divert to with obviously the intent to extend it to Milton Keynes if the EWR Aylesbury branch ever comes.

Perhaps they should even double track the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough line as it is used well by passenger and freight trains and will become even more significant if EWR Aylesbury branch comes.

The proposal was that the Gerrards Cross stoppers would go to Old Oak Common. The work on the line to Aylesbury includes bridges for two tracks, which means NR sees doubling as likely.

 

[gsc777]

Metropolitan Line and Chiltern Trains need to start stopping at Willesden Junction. The station has potential to become a major interchange especially if you want to head towards Luton Airport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==


Closing West Ruislip and South Ruislip would be a terrible idea especially with the proposals of sending the Central Line to Uxbridge which would be a better terminus than West Ruislip. Closing the Sudbury's isn't a too absurd idea but they should rather introduce a Chiltern Metro service between Gerrards Cross & Marylebone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==


I don't think someone living in High Wycombe would want to take a bus to Amersham to catch the Met down to Wembley Park.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==


People living on the Central Line Ruislip branch are also a trip generator.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2024 ==

My opinion:

The Chiltern Mainline is more a commuter route than a regional route. Electrification is neccesary and the route needs to get more services especially on the inner suburban stations (The Sudbury's). They should use the Gerrards Cross to Marylebone trains as all stations services to Marylebone.
We also need a station at Willesden Junction on both the Chiltern & The Met where ALL trains stop at because Willesden Junction would provide easy access to Thameslink and the Jubilee if heading towards Central London but would also provide good access to Luton Airport from the Chilterns and West London.

The Chiltern Mainline also needs the additional terminus at Old Oak Common where the current London to Aylesbury via Wycombe services can divert to with obviously the intent to extend it to Milton Keynes if the EWR Aylesbury branch ever comes.

Perhaps they should even double track the Aylesbury to Princes Risborough line as it is used well by passenger and freight trains and will become even more significant if EWR Aylesbury branch comes.

If Electrification was to come how would they sort out London to Aylesbury via Amersham line? Because it is already gifted with Fourth Rail electrification between Amersham & Harrow On The Hill (On the Chiltern Tracks).
Perhaps the Met should takeover all services to Aylesbury?

I think you mean West Hampstead rather than Willesden Junction for the Thameslink/Luton/Jubilee line interchange, which isn't a bad idea!

I think there's merit to Willesden Junction becoming a Chiltern stop on the London—Aylesbury route if they re-route the Aylesbury services to Old Oak Common. It would actually be quite interesting to see Chiltern become the operator of the line rather than Avanti/WCML operators, offering a parallel to the Marylebone—Moor St services, and giving Chiltern a true fast service. It would do a LOT to put Chiltern up as a genuine WCML competitor.

If this happened, I would perhaps propose fast services on the Chiltern line to be re-routed to Old Oak Common, along-side the future Milton Keynes fast services via the Aylesbury line or via the Chiltern and Aylesbury—Risborough lines (maybe both?). This could also use the Acton—Northolt line to go fast to West Ruislip.

Stopping services on the Chiltern and Aylesbury lines would be routed into Marylebone, and semi-fast services on the line would run to New Street and Oxford. There would be regular services extended beyond New Street, perhaps 5tpd to Stourbridge Junction, of which 2tpd extend further to Kidderminster. I wonder if Chiltern would be able to poach any Worcester passengers from GWR via Oxford and the Cotswolds?

I think the Met taking over Aylesbury services is really pushing the boundaries of "London Underground" but we could have an Overground service, similar to the Watford service?

 

[The Planner]

The proposal was that the Gerrards Cross stoppers would go to Old Oak Common. The work on the line to Aylesbury includes bridges for two tracks, which means NR sees doubling as likely.

No it doesnt, there is a big difference between passive provision and likely.

 

[Mikey C]

People may use it, but the important question is whether they could painlessly move to either the Met or Watford DC options nearby.

I bet lots of people simply use it because of its name, and would use Wembley Park if it was renamed Wembley Stadium and included in journey planners.

The number of people using Wembley Stadium station just because it sounds more "official" than Wembley Park station will be minuscule.

When 90000 people go to a match at Wembley, or even more to a concert, every form of public transport is needed to get people there. And for some people, Wembley Stadium station will genuinely be more appropriate anyway.

 

[AF91]

Closing Wembley Stadium would be unwise - it may not be great but it still takes a significant load off the other Wembley stations.

It also caters for event traffic from the north which the other two Wembley stations don't do at all or to the same extent. Many people use the likes of Gerrards Cross and Denham to park and ride to events given their proximity to the M25.

 

[CBlue]

I don't think someone living in High Wycombe would want to take a bus to Amersham to catch the Met down to Wembley Park.

You sure? My brother alongside a fairly noticeable number of regulars did this every day pre-covid, as it was cheaper than travelling with Chiltern.

 

[Energy]

In a similar vein, could they have stopping London—Birmingham services for commuters along the line in Wycombe, Leamington Spa and Solihull. Fast services could run (probably not completely non-stop like the London—Cambridge trains) to Moor St and then extend north either as stopping services to Stourbridge and Kidderminster, or as semi-fast services to Worcester? Gives the people of Worcester a second way of getting into London.

King's Lynn has passengers going to London and Cambridge in roughly equal proportion. For Kidderminster the proportion heavily favours Birmingham.

It also caters for event traffic from the north which the other two Wembley stations don't do at all or to the same extent. Many people use the likes of Gerrards Cross and Denham to park and ride to events given their proximity to the M25.

Traffic is overwhelmingly to London. More tickets are to Farringdon than to Moor St.

Top 10 from the ORR 2022-2023 destination matrix are below.

	From	To	TOTAL
1	Wembley Stadium	London Marylebone	130916
2	Wembley Stadium	High Wycombe	38892
3	Wembley Stadium	Gerrards Cross	19724
4	Wembley Stadium	Beaconsfield	18542
5	Wembley Stadium	South Ruislip	12877
6	Wembley Stadium	Denham	7003
7	Wembley Stadium	Northolt Park	6395
8	Wembley Stadium	Bicester Village	6375
9	Wembley Stadium	Oxford	5321
10	Wembley Stadium	Oxford Parkway	4724

 

[Railwaysceptic]

People may use it, but the important question is whether they could painlessly move to either the Met or Watford DC options nearby.

I bet lots of people simply use it because of its name, and would use Wembley Park if it was renamed Wembley Stadium and included in journey planners.

Wembley Stadium Station is not going to be closed so whether people could use other services instead is not an important question. This is a speculative thread and your suggestion is speculation only. Not Chiltern, not Network Rail nor DfT have suggested closing the station. Why people use it is their business. If it's because they like the name - extremely improbable - so be it.

 

[Joseph T]

...if it wasn't for the ban on new third rail.

There's been a ban?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It also caters for event traffic from the north which the other two Wembley stations don't do at all or to the same extent. Many people use the likes of Gerrards Cross and Denham to park and ride to events given their proximity to the M25.

Also many other stations with direct services to "Wembley" - Stanmore for example - even Hatch End on the DC......!

 

[Belperpete]

There's been a ban?

See threads such as this one:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ot-electrified-due-to-safety-concerns.267283/
Not an outright ban, but as good as.

 

[Mgameing123]

You sure? My brother alongside a fairly noticeable number of regulars did this every day pre-covid, as it was cheaper than travelling with Chiltern.

Typical UK train prices. That’s more a fare issue than a journey time issue.

 

[Route115?]

As a Ruislip resident I am inclined to agree that it would be better to concentrate on local flows. I personally would have liked to see the line from Paddington to South Ruislip reinstated and much of the track north of this four tracked rather than HS2. It would have been far cheaper and whilst journeys from the centre of London to Birmingham would have taken 30 minutes longer most local services would be much quicker. However, it would require a clever Swiss style timetable offering good connections. HS2 will make getting to Birmingham faster for me but I will still be quicker backtrack and to go via London (although Old Oak will be useful). The Chiltern timetable is largely skip stop as a result of it being a two track railway and this does not help local journeys.

Of course the argument of whether to concentrate on longer or local journeys is ongoing and will be around fot some time if not ever!

 

[Mgameing123]

As a Ruislip resident I am inclined to agree that it would be better to concentrate on local flows. I personally would have liked to see the line from Paddington to South Ruislip reinstated and much of the track north of this four tracked rather than HS2. It would have been far cheaper and whilst journeys from the centre of London to Birmingham would have taken 30 minutes longer most local services would be much quicker. However, it would require a clever Swiss style timetable offering good connections. HS2 will make getting to Birmingham faster for me but I will still be quicker backtrack and to go via London (although Old Oak will be useful). The Chiltern timetable is largely skip stop as a result of it being a two track railway and this does not help local journeys.

Of course the argument of whether to concentrate on longer or local journeys is ongoing and will be around fot some time if not ever!

It’s a bit hard to prioritize London Local Journeys when the capacity is also needed for skip stop services towards Oxford, Banbury and beyond. Most Chiltern services in some form run skip stop. The only way I can see more local trains on Chiltern is by stopping the Gerrards Cross to Marylebone trains at all stations. Also about the Paddington service would it even be well used and is it even justified?

 

[CyrusWuff]

The infrastructure needed for the mooted "Chiltern Metro" service (along with the 172s) was due to have been part of Evergreen 3, but it got descoped due to cost concerns.

 

[SynthD]

Also about the Paddington service would it even be well used and is it even justified?

The Old Oak Common terminus proposal had a minimal business plan that justified it, if I recall correctly.

The infrastructure needed for the mooted "Chiltern Metro" service (along with the 172s) was due to have been part of Evergreen 3, but it got descoped due to cost concerns.

What was descoped?

 

[cle]

2 bays and a 4tph terminus operation out of OOC might be the replacement for the Paddington plan, if it ever eventuates. I recall 1 x hourly services to Oxford, Aylesbury VP, High Wycombe and Banbury being mooted - of course that could change. All likely feeding Crossrail.

There would be no paths for those services to continue to Paddington itself.

 

[renegademaster]

If Wembley Stadium station is to be retained, it should probably have its platforms expanded to allow it to handle greater event-day crowds without risking a crush or putting people onto the track.

Couldn't we move the running lines over to the position of the old through lines, then fill in the existing running lines to make the platforms bigger?
Either that, or adopt a "Spanish Solution" Island built in the middle over the top of the old through lines - although I'm not sure if British rolling stock can simultaneously open doors on both sides.

Wembley Stadium station has handled the FA Cup finals I have been to perfectly fine