Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Are there any infrastructure upgrades to this line worth considering other than electrification of any form? Project Evergreen seemed to cover off the line speed and capacity upgrades fairly well.
One I've wondered is reinstating the link to Old Oak Common and have some terminating platforms there, with some Chiltern services diverted there. This would free up Marylebone capacity and feed into the Elizabeth Line.
Are there any infrastructure upgrades to this line worth considering other than electrification of any form? Project Evergreen seemed to cover off the line speed and capacity upgrades fairly well.
One I've wondered is reinstating the link to Old Oak Common and have some terminating platforms there, with some Chiltern services diverted there. This would free up Marylebone capacity and feed into the Elizabeth Line.
OOC for HS2/ GWML interchange is definitely on the table as a possibility.
Other than that it's all been updated pretty recently so apart from electrification there's not a huge amount to be done, this side of spending megabucks on 4 tracking, which probably wouldn't be necessary any time soon.
Getting back to the pre-pandemic service, and some smaller improvements (both Birmingham trains hourly and to Snow Hill - coming with the fourth platform) seem more likely.
Bicester is a high growth place - but that service was increased with the Oxford curve so you could say it's been addressed. And will gain EWR (ie a metro to Oxford)
Aylesbury Vale and High Wycombe have seen a lot of development. Other than that, there isn't a ton going on on the routes, it's rural or NIMBY/golfy.
Oxford is the other factor - more established of course but still with high economic growth (not quite Cambridge but many of the same traits, tech, science parks etc) - and Cowley reopening to Chiltern would be another development here. But won't affect the 'mainline' so much, per the topic.
I see those as the bigger chances to Chiltern. I'd love a four track railway, but would need to run from South Ruislip to Gerrards Cross to be useful. High Wycombe could do with a rebuild, and a west-facing bay possibly (it's a good end spot for the MKC-Aylesbury EWR service which is on ice - but also potentially other starter services). Beaconsfield loops seem pointless with GC tunnel being two track.
I'd expect to see increases to the Aylesbury Vale Parkway service as development increasingly surrounds it. It was never popular as a Parkway as most people who were driving to a station would go to Tring instead for the much better service, but it is increasingly surrounded by housing.
I wouldn't expect to see massive increases, though - more just the peak extra Aylesbury starters/terminators all going to Vale Parkway so far as can be pathed.
Whilst it has 2 tracks, the covered way at Gerrards Cross is 4-track width. You would however need to rebuild the viaducts at Harefield and between Denham Golf Club and Gerrards Cross.
I'd still take loops at Beaconsfield if you're offering, but the lines were realigned for higher speeds during Evergreen.
I'd expect to see increases to the Aylesbury Vale Parkway service as development increasingly surrounds it. It was never popular as a Parkway as most people who were driving to a station would go to Tring instead for the much better service, but it is increasingly surrounded by housing.
I wouldn't expect to see massive increases, though - more just the peak extra Aylesbury starters/terminators all going to Vale Parkway so far as can be pathed.
It might be interesting to see a few faster services on that route via HW - whether that would ever beat the fast times via Amersham. And could the HW-Aylesbury route ever handle 2tph each way... ?
I didn't touch on OOC. If those bays were built and the line re-connected, 4tph was mentioned. I would argue for 4tph to High Wycombe - maybe extending 1-2 to Princes Risborough (necessitating the quadding to a degree) - so it's like a metro service into the Elizabeth line.
No stops until South Ruislip (you could close West Ruislip to Chiltern, I don't think both are needed and South is marginally busier, and makes more sense for interchange) - including Greenford - as the Central line branch through there has tons of capacity now...
OOC will have fast Oxford services after all, via Reading. But connecting Bicester or Aylesbury might be desirable too.
No stops until South Ruislip (you could close West Ruislip to Chiltern, I don't think both are needed and South is marginally busier, and makes more sense for interchange) - including Greenford - as the Central line branch through there has tons of capacity now...
To be honest I question the value of all the innersuburban stops to Chiltern other than Wembley Stadium. They have an infrequent service that is not well used and have alternatives of some sort reasonably nearby. I don't think they would be a major loss were they to close, similar to innersuburban stations on the GWML and WCML main lines.
To be honest I question the value of all the innersuburban stops to Chiltern other than Wembley Stadium. They have an infrequent service that is not well used and have alternatives of some sort reasonably nearby. I don't think they would be a major loss were they to close, similar to innersuburban stations on the GWML and WCML main lines.
It'd make some sense (from a purely crayons point of view) to reduce service to one of the Ruislips if that meant an increase to one of the Sudburys, so that rather than 2x central line interchanges there's 1x central and 1x picc.
To be honest I question the value of all the innersuburban stops to Chiltern other than Wembley Stadium. They have an infrequent service that is not well used and have alternatives of some sort reasonably nearby. I don't think they would be a major loss were they to close, similar to innersuburban stations on the GWML and WCML main lines.
I agree - the Sudburys are pointless - no development, Piccadilly line nearby, not a high traffic area (low density, local employment patterns) so I would close those.
Northolt Park at 0.176m isn't well used either. And has the Central line nearby. The three stations have 0.25m combined! For Greater London, that's tragic and I'm sure closing those stations would save some $. As such I'd make that a faster stretch to lower journey times, esp for stoppers - keep South Ruislip for a Central line / outer interchange / potential OOC interchange and then Denham.
How would the Elizabeth Line connect to the Chiltern Main Line? How far out would it terminate? What frequency service could be supported? Would that come on top of existing services?
A frequent Elizabeth Line service to Prince's Risborough would support frequent shuttle services to the branch lines coming off that station, and then the services to Marylebone could focus around an outer commuter service to Bicester/Oxford/Banbury.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Maybe something like:
6 TPH from Princes Risborough to Elizabeth Line core, all stops
2 TPH from Oxford to Marylebone, all stops until Prince's Risborough
2 TPH from Banbury to Marylebone, all stops until Prince's Risborough
1 TPH from Stratford-upon-Avon to Marylebone, all stops until Banbury
1 TPH from Birmingham Snow Hill, all stops until Banbury
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The operation of a high frequency Crossrail service from High Wycombe raised significant concerns about the levels of service reliability that could be achieved for both Crossrail and the Chiltern Trains services that currently operate in the corridor. As a result of these factors, this corridor was not selected for inclusion in the preferred scheme.
Which means that additional infrastructure would be necessary to accommodate Crossrail services on the Chiltern Main Line route. Passing loops at High Wycombe and other stations would probably be necessary
There'd be no direct crossrail service to the Chiltern line, it'd be a Chiltern service via Greenford etc to OOC for interchange with Crossrail, GWML and HS2.
There'd be no direct crossrail service to the Chiltern line, it'd be a Chiltern service via Greenford etc to OOC for interchange with Crossrail, GWML and HS2.
The junction from the new north main line to the chiltern main line is already grade separated. I'm not sure grade separation at OOC is necessary if the number of EL services splitting off towards Chiltern is low enough. They could always be done in parallel with freight movements from Acton.
But if we are discussing upgrades besides electrification, why are you assuming that I'm proposing connecting the Elizabeth line to the Chiltern Main line without electrifying it?
But if we are discussing upgrades besides electrification, why are you assuming that I'm proposing connecting the Elizabeth line to the Chiltern Main line without electrifying it?
Well ok. We're building a junction at OOC and running at least 4tph (less than that won't be any use as a metro) up to where? Wycombe? How are those trains going to fit in with the other Chiltern services? 4 tracking?
Between Northolt Junction and Prince's Risborough, I only see two tunnels on OpenrailwayMaps - at Gerrard's Cross and between Beaconsfield and High Wycombe. So beyond the "easy sections for electrification" we can assume are included in Chiltern's partial electrification scheme, we would only need to electrify couple of hard sections and the new north main line itself in order to run Elizabeth Line trains up to High Wycombe/Prince's Risborough.
Well ok. We're building a junction at OOC and running at least 4tph (less than that won't be any use as a metro) up to where? Wycombe? How are those trains going to fit in with the other Chiltern services? 4 tracking?
One or more passing loops would be necessary, yes, but there ought to be space for it considering passing loops used to exist at most of the stations anyway.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
in my opinion, it would be more useful for Elizabeth Line trains to take the faster alignment by diverging right outside Old Oak Common. The commuters from Buckinghamshire would get much less value out of an Elizabeth Line branch that stopped at the 6 additional stations between OOC and Greenford.
One or more passing loops would be necessary, yes, but there ought to be space for it considering passing loops used to exist at most of the stations anyway.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
in my opinion, it would be more useful for Elizabeth Line trains to take the faster alignment by diverging right outside Old Oak Common. The commuters from Buckinghamshire would get much less value out of an Elizabeth Line branch that stopped at the 6 additional stations between OOC and Greenford.
No stops until South Ruislip (you could close West Ruislip to Chiltern, I don't think both are needed and South is marginally busier, and makes more sense for interchange) - including Greenford - as the Central line branch through there has tons of capacity now...
West Ruislip has the advantage over South Ruislip of walking distance to the Metropolitan and Piccadilly at Ickenham. That isn't a massive advantage, given that developing one of the Sudbury stations more would be better for the Piccadilly line, and changing at Harrow-on-the-Hill or walking from Baker Street works for passengers between the Met and Marylebone.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
