What to do with the Chiltern lines?

[wnr1990]

If only we could just bin those pesky Sudbury stations

Thanks Mr Beeching, you not only closed useful stations but made it impossible to close useless stations!

 

[HSTEd]

As another extreme solution - what about diverting the residual CHiltern service to OOC and converting the line to South Ruislip to a branch of the Jubilee line?
There are enough short terminating Jubilee line services to put a substantial service on it, 4 each at South Hampstead, Willesden Green and Wembley Park.

Although I expect the core of the Jubilee line is probably overloaded already, so if the branch is successful it might cause issues.

 

[SynthD]

As another extreme solution - what about diverting the residual CHiltern service to OOC and converting the line to South Ruislip to a branch of the Jubilee line?

Residual is an understatement. Marylebone has six platforms plus sidings, there is not room for that at OOC.

 

[HSTEd]

Residual is an understatement. Marylebone has six platforms plus sidings, there is not room for that at OOC.

If the Chiltern Main line diverts to Old Oak Common it will have lost responsibility for the via Amersham line and the inner suburbans south of South Ruislip.

How many trains per hour does the line need to maintain or somewhat improve current service levels?
I would be surprised if six platforms is strictly necessary to operate such a service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Diverting the entire Chiltern mainline to terminate at a station in the suburbs would be beyond a stupid idea. It makes even less sense than Euston InterCity services.

Marylebone may seem badly connected but in reality the Met/Circle/H&C at Baker St is a very short walk and connects commuters to the City; there's no need for the Liz to do that, and places like the entertainment areas around Baker St would be worse connected, plus those who go onwards from Marylebone by taxi, bus and bicycle would be disadvantaged.

A stupid idea like this was fended off in the 1980s, let's not bring it back again.

 

[Tester]

If only we could just bin those pesky Sudbury stations

Thanks Mr Beeching, you not only closed useful stations but made it impossible to close useless stations!

I think we can safely say that you don't live near one of them

Compare journey times to central London via Chiltern and via Piccadilly!

The problem is poor service, not poor location.

 

[Mgameing123]

I think we can safely say that you don't live near one of them

Compare journey times to central London via Chiltern and via Piccadilly!

The problem is poor service, not poor location.

The Chiltern Metro proposal would solve this issue and might even be more justified with OOC Chiltern station.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2024 ==

I had an idea in my head. Could it be justified to run Elizabeth Line trains up to High Wycombe every 30 minutes when a Chiltern Mainline electrification happens. Obviously the question is would it be justified running 9 car trains to these leafy suburbs?

 

[The Planner]

The Chiltern Metro proposal would solve this issue and might even be more justified with OOC Chiltern station.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2024 ==

I had an idea in my head. Could it be justified to run Elizabeth Line trains up to High Wycombe every 30 minutes when a Chiltern Mainline electrification happens. Obviously the question is would it be justified running 9 car trains to these leafy suburbs?

You can't get them onto the Chilterns, there won't be a physical connection.

 

[nw1]

Talking of service patterns post electrification, would a sensible option perhaps be something like this on the Chiltern mainline:
- Close all local stations between Denham and London with the exception of Northolt Park
- 4tph all stations to High Wycombe (maybe alternate Denham Golf Club and Seer Green/Jordans due to these being much quieter than the others)
- 4tph fast to High Wycombe, of which then 2 all stations* to Oxford and 2 all stations to Birmingham Moor St. These would be flighted just before the stoppers from Marylebone

Seems to broadly make sense, but would you want the Birminghams to go fast from High Wycombe to Bicester, to prevent journey times to Banbury, Leamington, Warwick, etc being slowed down too much?

 

[AF91]

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

Correct. Wembley Stadium Station is staffed during events and has a well established method of sorting passengers into queues for different station groups to best match the stopping patterns for the event day timetables. The numbers onto the platform are quite carefully controlled to ensure everything remains safe.

That said, the platforms are currently only long enough to fit 8 car trains if dispatchers are available or 7 cars using DOO. Lengthening both platforms and upgrading the DOO so that 9 car trains can call if needed would be a good edition. Although lengthening platform 2 would require either moving the depot pointwork further south or rebuilding the road bridge at the north end to allow for the platforms to run underneath.

 

[JonathanH]

Seems to broadly make sense, but would you want the Birminghams to go fast from High Wycombe to Bicester, to prevent journey times to Banbury, Leamington, Warwick, etc being slowed down too much?

That depends on whether connectivity is important. Apart from Saunderton and Kings Sutton, the other stations north of High Wycombe might as well see calls on all services. Princes Risborough and Haddenham & Thame Parkway can't cost that much time.

 

[nw1]

That depends on whether connectivity is important. Apart from Saunderton and Kings Sutton, the other stations north of High Wycombe might as well see calls on all services. Princes Risborough and Haddenham & Thame Parkway can't cost that much time.

EDIT: sorry, was forgetting the line diverged before Bicester North. In that case, maybe call 1tph of the Birminghams at those 2 stations and call the other at Kings Sutton instead (maybe only every 2 hours).

 

[87015]

That depends on whether connectivity is important. Apart from Saunderton and Kings Sutton, the other stations north of High Wycombe might as well see calls on all services. Princes Risborough and Haddenham & Thame Parkway can't cost that much time.

What’s that based on, Haddenham particular is bang in the middle of a long 100mph section so would cost more time than most?

 

[Mgameing123]

You can't get them onto the Chilterns, there won't be a physical connection.

I mean if there was built a physical connection.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2024 ==

It would cause a certain individual on here to fuss, yes ( ), and possibly people from places like High Wycombe who would proportionally see a significant increase in journey time to Wembley. However most people don't go there often, and those from further away e.g. Birmingham would probably manage a similar end to end time by using Avanti then the Tube, so I don't think it would be that controversial.

One option would be to retain it for special event use only, a bit like the way West Midlands Trains only serve Wembley Central for specific special events. But it doesn't handle that well either, so is probably best closed.

Northolt Park is 1km from each of its nearest Tube stations so may warrant retention, but one station could probably just be served by a 4tph Wycombe EMU local service without causing huge disruption.

In the end, 1tph stopping services in a city where the Tube offers sub-10 minute frequencies really isn't providing any value compared to what else the paths could be used for.

Talking of service patterns post electrification, would a sensible option perhaps be something like this on the Chiltern mainline:
- Close all local stations between Denham and London with the exception of Northolt Park
- 4tph all stations to High Wycombe (maybe alternate Denham Golf Club and Seer Green/Jordans due to these being much quieter than the others)
- 4tph fast to High Wycombe, of which then 2 all stations* to Oxford and 2 all stations to Birmingham Moor St. These would be flighted just before the stoppers from Marylebone

For Aylesbury one would struggle to justify a significant upgrade due to low demand, but 4-5 car dual voltage plus battery units on a 2tph service dropping to hourly during the day would suit fairly well, with an interior similar to WMT's Class 730s.

* Give or take Islip, perhaps only call one of them there.

All stations to Birmingham would be too long of a ride. South Ruislip is an important interchange to the Central Line which goes to Westfield Sheppards Bush.

The Sudbury’s haven’t reached their potential. The services there are so poor so nobody wants to take the Chiltern train there.

 

[AF91]

What’s that based on, Haddenham particular is bang in the middle of a long 100mph section so would cost more time than most?

It's also right in the middle of a section of signaling that only supports 4 minute headways (rising to 5 minutes if the first train has called at Haddenham on the down). Makes it even harder to fit Haddenham calls in as you're already getting squeezed on the train graph.

 

[wnr1990]

I think we can safely say that you don't live near one of them

Compare journey times to central London via Chiltern and via Piccadilly!

The problem is poor service, not poor location.

Depends how we're defining central London. To the Marylebone/Paddington area, then yeah Chiltern wins hands down.

To the City though? Piccadilly and Central at the very least matches Chiltern, and that's with 1 less change. And Piccadilly would obviously come out the winner to the West End.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends how we're defining central London. To the Marylebone/Paddington area, then yeah Chiltern wins hands down.

To the City though? Piccadilly and Central at the very least matches Chiltern, and that's with 1 less change. And Piccadilly would obviously come out the winner to the West End.

And don't forget the benefits of a Tube train every 2-3 minutes rather than Chiltern at 2tph (which is the best it could ever realistically be, and it's 1tph now).

I can see interchange benefits (which would be gained by having some of the Wycombes stop at the stations that have Tube interchange) but I can't otherwise see much benefit in these stations at all, and would venture the view that the reason a lot of Forumites like these stations is the same reason as why they don't support Metrolink conversion of e.g. the east and west Manchester commuter lines - namely that they like heavy rail as a thing, as it's more interesting than trams or Tube trains.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

Most of this thread seems to be people looking to make changes for the sake of making changes.

In my view, the only sensible changes to be made to the chilterns are as follows (bearing in mind restricted budgets), ordered cheapest to most expensive:


1) Bi-Di passing loop installed at Denham on old down fast.
2) Reinstate up and down fast at Beaconsfield. This provides enough infrastructure to extend all Denham terminators to Wycombe.
3) Reinstate quadruple track between South and West Ruisplip. This provides extra redundancy to provide enhanced service frequency and reliability.

Dont see the need for extending to OOC. If doing that, lets have a physical connection GWML and station added at Greenford. Divert a few Crossrail trains to Wycombe (no further) stopping at Greenford, South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Denham, Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe. At this point, makes sense to wire up Wycombe to OOC and Marylebone.

On a seperate note, inner surban stations from Marylebone to South Ruislip shouldnt be closed, id aim for a once hourly Marylebone - West Ruislip service all stations, and some Marylebone - Aylesbury via HW services to call at Wembley and Ruislip.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Depends how we're defining central London. To the Marylebone/Paddington area, then yeah Chiltern wins hands down.

To the City though? Piccadilly and Central at the very least matches Chiltern, and that's with 1 less change. And Piccadilly would obviously come out the winner to the West End.

From Marylebone one can take the Bakerloo Line which calls at Regents Park, Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus and then two important main line termini.

 

[A0]

On a seperate note, inner surban stations from Marylebone to South Ruislip shouldnt be closed, id aim for a once hourly Marylebone - West Ruislip service all stations, and some Marylebone - Aylesbury via HW services to call at Wembley and Ruislip.

The reality is that 1tph in the London area really isn't going to cut it, given the "turn up and go" frequencies on other, nearby stations (Piccadilly line), with sensible interchanges to other lines as part of that.

 

[Mgameing123]

The reality is that 1tph in the London area really isn't going to cut it, given the "turn up and go" frequencies on other, nearby stations (Piccadilly line), with sensible interchanges to other lines as part of that.

4tph is what we need. Just make it a 2 car train at first then once demand comes we put longer trains. I’d also suggest building platforms at West Hempstead for Metropolitan and Chiltern lines where all trains will stop for interchange purposes.

 

[bramling]

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.

I can’t help but get the feeling that the real issue at Marylebone is local residents unhappy at the noise from certain Chiltern trains, specifically the loco-hauled.

Compared to the pollution from road vehicles, anything Chiltern produces at Marylebone is a total drop in a very large ocean.

That said, personally I think Chiltern should be a priority for electrification.

 

[md2016]

The Chiltern line by the Denham Viaduct runs immediately next to HS2. I'm sure this is a really stupid question from a complete layman, but could Chiltern/ GBR hypothetically utilise the spare capacity left by cutbacks to HS2 and improve the business case for new Euston?

 

[A0]

4tph is what we need. Just make it a 2 car train at first then once demand comes we put longer trains. I’d also suggest building platforms at West Hempstead for Metropolitan and Chiltern lines where all trains will stop for interchange purposes.

But 4tph is impossible for those stations given the other services which also need to be pathed along there.

 

[Mikey C]

I can’t help but get the feeling that the real issue at Marylebone is local residents unhappy at the noise from certain Chiltern trains, specifically the loco-hauled.

Compared to the pollution from road vehicles, anything Chiltern produces at Marylebone is a total drop in a very large ocean.

That said, personally I think Chiltern should be a priority for electrification.

The local air pollution AND noise from road vehicles though is coming down each year. ULEZ and strict LEZ for buses and lorries have removed the older vehicles, and more and more hybrid and full electric vehicles are coming into service.

 

[cle]

The Chiltern line by the Denham Viaduct runs immediately next to HS2. I'm sure this is a really stupid question from a complete layman, but could Chiltern/ GBR hypothetically utilise the spare capacity left by cutbacks to HS2 and improve the business case for new Euston?

Wouldn't that be ironic.

One thing I could see is that if a future Chiltern bay (or two, not sure how wide the platforms will be) - is created at OOC, possibly that could be utilized for more than the 4tph which were suggested. And in turn, enable more for Marylebone.

If that NNL could be reworked to have the capacity of 6-8 Chiltern services per hour, then Marylebone could potentially run 4tph High Wycombe and 6tph Amersham/Chesham (2) / Aylesbury VP services, and be 'metro' only, like a mini Cannon St.

Or Marylebone retains a smaller number of fast services for connectivity but is otherwise for metro services at higher frequency.

 

[The Planner]

4tph is what we need. Just make it a 2 car train at first then once demand comes we put longer trains. I’d also suggest building platforms at West Hempstead for Metropolitan and Chiltern lines where all trains will stop for interchange purposes.

Destroys capacity between Neasden Jn and South Ruislip if you do that.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

4tph is what we need. Just make it a 2 car train at first then once demand comes we put longer trains. I’d also suggest building platforms at West Hempstead for Metropolitan and Chiltern lines where all trains will stop for interchange purposes.

4 tph is needed by whom? The suburban stations served by Chiltern generate very small numbers of passengers. Certainly one reason for this is the paltry service frequency as mentioned in Post 110; and if frequency were increased, I'm sure patronage would also increase. But, the stations are in the outer London suburbs where population density is far less than in inner London. For example, the Central Line trains between West Ruislip and Hanger Lane are very lightly loaded off peak. There is no reason to believe 4 tph on Chiltern would stimulate huge numbers of passengers at places like West Ruislip, South Ruislip and Northolt Park, which station incidentally is way off the beaten track and inadequately signposted.

As for Chiltern platforms at West Hampstead: you need to come to London and see for yourself why that is financially impracticable.

 

[Mgameing123]

4 tph is needed by whom? The suburban stations served by Chiltern generate very small numbers of passengers. Certainly one reason for this is the paltry service frequency as mentioned in Post 110; and if frequency were increased, I'm sure patronage would also increase. But, the stations are in the outer London suburbs where population density is far less that in inner London. For example, the Central Line trains between West Ruislip and Hanger Lane are very lightly loaded off peak. There is no reason to believe 4 tph on Chiltern would stimulate huge numbers of passengers at places like West Ruislip, South Ruislip and Northolt Park, which station incidentally is way off the beaten track and inadequately signposted.

As for Chiltern platforms at West Hampstead: you need to come to London and see for yourself why that is financially impracticable.

I understand land acquisition costs are very high but an interchange there would generate a lot of demand with easier access to Luton and perhaps Gatwick Airport or even Stratford and Canary Wharf.

The cheapest way to get a West Hampstead Station but also a very disruptive way is probably to demolish the existing Jubilee platforms and rebuild the platforms in a Finchley Road style layout.

The 4 tph could generate good amounts of demand in the peak but definitely not off peak.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2024 ==

Destroys capacity between Neasden Jn and South Ruislip if you do that.

Obviously the idea is for when Old Oak Common gets built but we should remember this was the original Chiltern Metro plans.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2024 ==

But 4tph is impossible for those stations given the other services which also need to be pathed along there.

Maybe after Old Oak Common it could work. This is the original plan for the London Suburban Stations.

 

[cle]

West Hampstead - you'd have to have a station on the other side also (think Shibuya high level platforms!) - and choose between Met or Chiltern. Jubilee where it is - the island platform is admittedly very wide though. But busy!

The junction at Northolt Park is already grade separated to push Marylebone services onto outers (stoppers) and OOC services up the fasts. What we'd need is quadding to go on further, ideally until Gerrards Cross at least.

But it's a fair point overall - the Sudburys, Ruislip, Chesham, all these places are pretty quiet overall. The potential isn't huge, and house-building isn't booming. Where it is booming on the route, is Wembley, High Wycombe and Bicester, plus Aylesbury. And OOC of course / North Acton. Those are the growth areas.

Diverting the entire Chiltern mainline to terminate at a station in the suburbs would be beyond a stupid idea. It makes even less sense than Euston InterCity services.

Marylebone may seem badly connected but in reality the Met/Circle/H&C at Baker St is a very short walk and connects commuters to the City; there's no need for the Liz to do that, and places like the entertainment areas around Baker St would be worse connected, plus those who go onwards from Marylebone by taxi, bus and bicycle would be disadvantaged.

A stupid idea like this was fended off in the 1980s, let's not bring it back again.

I would typically agree but Stratford is/was the busiest service in the country, and a hub of its own. The West Anglia routes that terminate there are packed, and people walk to wherever, or disperse in all directions. This was not the case 15 years ago, but it was so even before Crossrail.

I would think OOC would be a similar situation - not any old suburban terminus but a new hub , and yes the majority onto Crossrail into town (note that employment is not universally walkable from everywhere - Marylebone being a strong example of onward need!) - but also the other way to Ealing and Heathrow, GWML, hopefully Overground etc.