What to do with the Chiltern lines?

[CyrusWuff]

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

What was descoped?

I believe the original plan was for a new Down side bay at Gerrards Cross, crossover at West Ruislip and various signalling alterations so the stoppers (which the 172s were intended for) could be overtaken, along with passive provision for a through line at Denham when the island platform was built.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail service frequencies required the through services Paddington to Greenford to be withdrawn, as the flat crossing caused conflicts. So presumably the idea of through services from the Chiltern route all the way into Paddington would also have been impossible due to flat crossing conflicts. Not to mention the lack of platform capacity at Paddington For a regular service.

 

[The Planner]

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.

They couldn't do that anyway as there was no planned connection.

 

[Mgameing123]

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

What was descoped?

How? It will literally connect with the Elizabeth Line, HS2 and GWML. How would it have a bad business case?

 

[SynthD]

How? It will literally connect with the Elizabeth Line, HS2 and GWML. How would it have a bad business case?

It was positive but not detailed as it was early stage, more focused on how it helps the railway.

 

[Meerkat]

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

It’s best when you’ve been in corporate and get lane G to jump the big queue and get an empty train!
Actually it was a bit embarrassing walking by a load of envious glares.
Seriously, there were a lot of people there that thereby weren’t added to the huge queue for Wembley Park.

 

[Mgameing123]

How would a Chiltern Metro run without forcing the trains behind to slow down?

 

[JonathanH]

How would a Chiltern Metro run without forcing the trains behind to slow down?

With high acceleration rolling stock, 'flighting' of the faster services, and use of the loops at South Ruislip northbound and West Ruislip southbound.

 

[cle]

With high acceleration rolling stock, 'flighting' of the faster services, and use of the loops at South Ruislip northbound and West Ruislip southbound.

There is also more 'Evergreen' work that could be done - rebuild Denham with four tracks and two outer platforms - and re-instate fast lines for the same layout at Beaconsfield. Both would enable more pathing/overtaking opps. A sustained section of 4 track would help somewhere too. And some expansion at High Wycombe possibly.

If these metro services were the first to be wired, which is reasonable to think, that would also help on timings.

 

[The Planner]

There is also more 'Evergreen' work that could be done - rebuild Denham with four tracks and two outer platforms - and re-instate fast lines for the same layout at Beaconsfield. Both would enable more pathing/overtaking opps. A sustained section of 4 track would help somewhere too. And some expansion at High Wycombe possibly.

If these metro services were the first to be wired, which is reasonable to think, that would also help on timings.

It would allow more overtaking but the detriment to the stoppers would be huge due to the short length of any loops.

 

[cle]

I think if some of the four track sections were longer and connected, there could be a dynamic element that wouldn't impede the stoppers too much.

 

[JonathanH]

Putting the reversing siding at Gerrards Cross in the middle of the formation would have been a useful idea as well

 

[30907]

I think if some of the four track sections were longer and connected, there could be a dynamic element that wouldn't impede the stoppers too much.

Yes, with at least 2 stations on the looped section. Could have worked at the Ruislips but would be difficult to reinstate. Denham to Denham GC would be short and involve relatively little land take and no major roads.

 

[CyrusWuff]

There is also more 'Evergreen' work that could be done - rebuild Denham with four tracks and two outer platforms - and re-instate fast lines for the same layout at Beaconsfield.

Reinstating the former Down platform at Denham would require reconstructing the embankment, which is the main reason why the current island platform was built.

 

[SynthD]

How useful is just a third track? There are a few places where four tracks may not fit, or would require a lower speed limit for non stoppers.

 

[30907]

How useful is just a third track? There are a few places where four tracks may not fit, or would require a lower speed limit for non stoppers.

Depends on how it is used.

IIRC east of Geneva there is a 3-track layout to cope with the "S-bahn" to Coppet.

The problem with Chiltern is that most of the traffic is from/to outer-suburban or medium distance stations.

 

[Mikey C]

Would reinstating the fast tracks at Wembley Stadium help? That way trains could sit in the platforms during events, without blocking the lines?

 

[The Planner]

Would reinstating the fast tracks at Wembley Stadium help? That way trains could sit in the platforms during events, without blocking the lines?

That just helps with events, it doesnt do a lot else.

 

[LLivery]

I feel like it would make more sense to run some fast services into OOC, rather than Marylebone, allowing the suburban stations to be served easier.

Ideally, it'd like to see
Full Electrification of Chiltern, EWR and Snow Hills
4 tracking Dorridge to Moor Street
Reinstate loops where it makes sense

Rough fantasy timetable:
2tph OOC - Birmingham Moor Street: High Wycombe, Haddenham (1tph), Bicester N, King's Sutton (1tph), Banbury, Leamington, Warwick Pwky, Dorridge, Solihull
2tph London Marylebone - Oxford: Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes R (1tph), Haddenham (1tph), Bicester Village, Islip (1tph), Oxford Pkwy
1tph OOC - Stratford-u-A: West Ruslip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Bicester N, Banbury, Leamington, Warwick, Warwick Pkwy, Hatton, etc. I would even consider making this into a splitter at Leamington, combined with the Nuneaton service.
1tph Moor Street - Stratford fast: Solihull, Dorridge, Lapworth, Stratford Pwky
1tph Moor Street - Oxford: Solihull, Warwick, Leamington, Banbury, King's Sutton, Heyford, Tackley

2tph London Marylebone - MKC via Amersham
1tph London Marylebone - Aylesbury via Wycombe stopper
1-2tph London Marylebone - High Wycombe via Denham stopper

4tph Dorridge - Stourbridge (2tph)/Kidderminster (2tph)
4tph Stratford (2tph)/Whitlocks (2tph) - Stourbridge (2tph)/Worcester(2tph)

 

[Meerkat]

I feel like it would make more sense to run some fast services into OOC, rather than Marylebone, allowing the suburban stations to be served easier.

I would have thought the greater demand for OOC would be from stopping services - commuters wanting the Lizzie, and demand for HS2 won’t go far up the Chiltern before it’s quicker to get a train to Moor Street or drive to Interchange.

 

[LLivery]

I would have thought the greater demand for OOC would be from stopping services - commuters wanting the Lizzie, and demand for HS2 won’t go far up the Chiltern before it’s quicker to get a train to Moor Street or drive to Interchange.

Maybe, but then what serves Northolt Pak - Wembley Stadium?

But I also feel people from Banbury, etc, will go to whatever London terminus they have. OOC wouldn't really be any slower than Marylebone to the West End and in fact, it'd probably be quicker to the City and Canary Wharf.

 

[SynthD]

Maybe, but then what serves Northolt Pak - Wembley Stadium?

Piecing it together, my guess is fast services from Oxford and Birmingham to Marylebone, slow services from Aylesbury and High Wycombe to Marylebone, slow services from Gerrards Cross to OOC. Wembley to Ruislip would continue to be stops on the Marylebone slows.

 

[leytongabriel]

I can't see that as anything other than a massively profligate waste of paths given how close most of those stations are to the Tube which will always offer a superior service.

Except that the Piccadilly line is a very slow, long way round to central London and not always every 10m either as this service is the first to go if there are problems.

 

[mr_jrt]

Maybe, but then what serves Northolt Pak - Wembley Stadium?

But I also feel people from Banbury, etc, will go to whatever London terminus they have. OOC wouldn't really be any slower than Marylebone to the West End and in fact, it'd probably be quicker to the City and Canary Wharf.

My very, very old crayoned solution was a Jubilee line branch from Neasden, which then connects those stations to the wider local area, which the current Chiltern service doesn't given the lack of platforms on the Chiltern line south of HotH. Fast options to Baker Street available from the Met. Devil's always in the details, though.

 

[LLivery]

My very, very old crayoned solution was a Jubilee line branch from Neasden, which then connects those stations to the wider local area, which the current Chiltern service doesn't given the lack of platforms on the Chiltern line south of HotH. Fast options to Baker Street available from the Met. Devil's always in the details, though.

If you're going to do that, you might as well extend the Amersham service to Aylesbury again, and reinstate all-day Met fast services. Chiltern platforms at Neasden would be a good interchange with the proposed WLO, however. I'd also say Wembley Park should have Chiltern platforms too.

Piecing it together, my guess is fast services from Oxford and Birmingham to Marylebone, slow services from Aylesbury and High Wycombe to Marylebone, slow services from Gerrards Cross to OOC. Wembley to Ruislip would continue to be stops on the Marylebone slows.

Feels like a bit of a waste of OOC tbh. All it would serve is the Denhams and Ruislips and not even at turn up and go freq. That can't be worth the effort; it'd never be busy. Also, it stops Northolt-Wembley being anything above 2tph, unless you stop a fast at Northolt and Wembley.

I don't expect Chiltern to compete with HS2, so that's why I don't really see the issue with OOC for Moor St services.

 

[Mgameing123]

If you're going to do that, you might as well extend the Amersham service to Aylesbury again, and reinstate all-day Met fast services. Chiltern platforms at Neasden would be a good interchange with the proposed WLO, however. I'd also say Wembley Park should have Chiltern platforms too.



Feels like a bit of a waste of OOC tbh. All it would serve is the Denhams and Ruislips and not even at turn up and go freq. That can't be worth the effort; it'd never be busy. Also, it stops Northolt-Wembley being anything above 2tph, unless you stop a fast at Northolt and Wembley.

I don't expect Chiltern to compete with HS2, so that's why I don't really see the issue with OOC for Moor St services.

The demand for Old Oak Common will depend on what gets built there. If the Overground gets those 2 stations for OOC then there would be a case. If OOC has a corridor to the Central Line at North Acton then there is a case.
If ever the Watford to Croydon gets to stop at OOC then that would also generate demand.

It all depends on what the final product is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2024 ==

Piecing it together, my guess is fast services from Oxford and Birmingham to Marylebone, slow services from Aylesbury and High Wycombe to Marylebone, slow services from Gerrards Cross to OOC. Wembley to Ruislip would continue to be stops on the Marylebone slows.

Old Oak Common would take the Aylesbury via Wycombe to Marylebone service. And most likely High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross to Marylebone aswell.

As of replacement for the 3 stations on the Marylebone corridor then it would most likely be the proposed Chiltern Metro service.

 

[CyrusWuff]

As of replacement for the 3 stations on the Marylebone corridor then it would most likely be the proposed Chiltern Metro service.

Chiltern Metro makes most sense if it terminates in a new/rebuilt bay at Gerrards Cross for connectivity purposes. (Ideally you'd run them all the way through to High Wycombe, but that would eat up paths and require careful flighting.)

Slowing services down by having them call at West Ruislip to provide that connection seems pointless.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The problem with the Chiltern train service is air pollution from Chiltern's diesel trains. That can only be fixed by 25kV AC overhead electrification of the railway lines used by Chiltern's trains. Gospel Oak to Barking now has overhead electrification and all the trains into Paddington are now electric or bimodes running on overhead electric in London so Chiltern Trains is now the biggest remaining source of air pollution from diesel trains in London.

Ministers under pressure to reduce Marylebone station’s train fumes

Heavily polluting diesel locomotives must be banned from Marylebone station to improve the “unacceptably poor” air quality in the area, ministers were told Wednesday.

www.standard.co.uk

Disappointment as Chiltern Railways scraps hybrid train plans

Chiltern Railways has quietly scrapped its plans to introduce hybrid trains from services in London after reports of “unacceptably poor” air quality in the area surrounding its Marylebone terminus, the Standard can reveal.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Mgameing123]

The problem with the Chiltern train service is air pollution from Chiltern's diesel trains. That can only be fixed by 25kV AC overhead electrification of the railway lines used by Chiltern's trains. Gospel Oak to Barking now has overhead electrification and all the trains into Paddington are now electric or bimodes running on overhead electric in London so Chiltern Trains is now the biggest remaining source of air pollution from diesel trains in London.

What? Do you mean the biggest air polluters?

 

[md2016]

Any proposed timetables for the metro can’t ignore that a very significant proportion of customers are travelling Marylebone to Gerrard Cross and (especially) Beaconsfield.

The winter timetable removed peak skipping services to Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield and it really didn’t work. The reinstatement of the 17.45 direct to Beaconsfield has improved the metro service significantly.

With trains terminating at Old Oak Common, would there be a chance trains being run later? 00.10 always feels very early for the last train on a major line, and is often very busy on Thurs-Sat.