Additional Tracks for the Chiltern Main Line (and other possible improvement work)

[BanburyBlue]

It always surprised me that Chiltern didn't make more passing loops during Evergreen, rather than make them two track - Bicester North, Gerrards Cross, High Wycombe, Beaconsfield.

 

[option]

The reason they hang around there is because of a lack of capacity, not because it is mandated that Chiltern services have to dwell for 20 minutes at West Ruislip. If the railway between South and West Ruislip was 4 track, the stopping services wouldn't need to sit and wait in a loop, instead they could keep moving and serve both Ruislip stations.

It's 3-track through the stations, & could easily be 3-tracked between them, it's ~2km of 2-track.
The bridges are probably wide enough for 4-track, but you've still only got 2-track each side of that section. The next bridges north are definitely only 2-track, same with bridges south.
No space for a passing loop at Northolt Park.

 

[Esker-pades]

It's 3-track through the stations, & could easily be 3-tracked between them, it's ~2km of 2-track.
The bridges are probably wide enough for 4-track, but you've still only got 2-track each side of that section. The next bridges north are definitely only 2-track, same with bridges south.
No space for a passing loop at Northolt Park.

4 tracks from West to South Ruislip used to exist. That can be re-instated.

 

[Western Lord]

Yes. Yes it is.
West Ruislip to Marble Arch (Central Line): 35 minutes
West Ruislip to Marylebone (Chiltern): 25 minutes
Sudbury Hill to Hyde Park Corner (Piccadilly Line): 35 minutes
Sudbury Hill Harrow to Marylebone (Chiltern): 16 minutes

Marylebone is not central London! Both the Central Line and the Piccadilly Line will take you direct to central London (which is not Marble Arch or Hyde Park Corner). Onward connections at Marylebone are poor.

 

[Esker-pades]

Marylebone is not central London! Both the Central Line and the Piccadilly Line will take you direct to central London (which is not Marble Arch or Hyde Park Corner). Onward connections at Marylebone are poor.

The Greater London Authority defines Central London as the boroughs of Camden, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Westminster and the City of London. Marylebone station is in the City of Westminster.

How are you defining Central London?

 

[t_star2001uk]

4 tracks from West to South Ruislip used to exist. That can be re-instated.

Just a couple of tiny little details among many that would get in the way, namely the down platform at West Ruislip and the up platform at South Ruislip are built on the trackbed of the old loops...

 

[Esker-pades]

Just a couple of tiny little details among many that would get in the way, namely the down platform at West Ruislip and the up platform at South Ruislip are built on the trackbed of the old loops...

One can move platforms...

 

[MarlowDonkey]

the down platform at West Ruislip and the up platform at South Ruislip are built on the trackbed of the old loops...

Gerrards Cross is the same whilst at Denham they built a new platform in the middle, I think, because the embankment was collapsing. Beaconsfield and Wycombe look simpler. Wembley was four tracks as well, I seem to think, but that's been completely remodelled.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Gerrards Cross is the same whilst at Denham they built a new platform in the middle, I think, because the embankment was collapsing. Beaconsfield and Wycombe look simpler. Wembley was four tracks as well, I seem to think, but that's been completely remodelled.

Further up the line there is Princes Risborough down main platform and the up platform at Bicester North as well...

 

[route:oxford]

I'd suggest 4 platform station (twin islands) at Haddenham & Thame Parkway.

Firstly, because I'm incredibly lazy, and have you any idea how far it is to walk (run!) from where the little red car is parked on the top left corner of this photo to the London bound platform? You think you are on the bridge, but oh no, there's the dog-leg on the bridge then 200 metres sprint back down the ramp...



There's lots of space, could be a nice new wide bridge (with gatelines if appropriate) with staircases and lifts down to twin island platforms.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Just a couple of tiny little details among many that would get in the way, namely the down platform at West Ruislip and the up platform at South Ruislip are built on the trackbed of the old loops...

Are you the Chiltern driver who has uploaded those splendid videos to YouTube?

 

[t_star2001uk]

Probably. I have put a couple up...

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Probably. I have put a couple up...

More than a couple. Anyway, I'm in your debt so many thanks.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Problems:

1. Because of the lack of four tracking on the Chiltern Main Line, Chiltern Railways have had to choose between catering for London and Buckinghamshire commuters, or long-distance traffice. They have chosen the latter. If more stations can be four tracked so that faster trains can overtake stopping services, the railway can cater for both. Those very weird and asymmetrical stopping patterns can be done away with.

Which odd stopping patterns are we talking about? As I recall, Chiltern has awkward skip-stopping patterns both for its commuter services within London and for its long-distance services between High Wycombe and Banbury.

• For the commuter services, I would imagine the solution is to 4-track at least between South and West Ruislip, and perhaps beyond that towards High Wycombe, and to send the fast trains to Old Oak Common (obviously, post HS2), thereby allowing a decent metro service to Marylebone.
• West Of High Wycombe, I don't think the issue is track capacity. More likely to be Chiltern's attempts to speed trains up to serve the London-Oxford and London-Birmingham markets, to the detriment of intermediate stations. I'm guessing the solution there is get on with building HS2: That'll basically remove all the London-Birmingham passengers from Chiltern, allowing them to focus more on the intermediate stations (which is arguably what that line ought to have been doing in the first place).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd suggest 4 platform station (twin islands) at Haddenham & Thame Parkway.

Firstly, because I'm incredibly lazy, and have you any idea how far it is to walk (run!) from where the little red car is parked on the top left corner of this photo to the London bound platform? You think you are on the bridge, but oh no, there's the dog-leg on the bridge then 200 metres sprint back down the ramp...

Not sure I've understood your argument for reducing the walk. But from the point of view of trains, why would you need to 4-track? That section of line sees 5 tph each way on weekdays (2 Birmingham, 2 Oxford, 1 Banbury/Stratford-on-Avon). That doesn't seem beyond the ability of 2 tracks to cope with, even allowing for some trains being a bit faster than others.

 

[Esker-pades]

Which odd stopping patterns are we talking about? As I recall, Chiltern has awkward skip-stopping patterns both for its commuter services within London and for its long-distance services between High Wycombe and Banbury.

Denham Golf Club has a non-stop service from London Marylebone (to Banbury), but is served by the Gerrard's Cross stopping service in the other direction. The journey time is 17 minutes down, and 38 minutes up.

 

[hexagon789]

I would have thought that the thing that the Chiltern Mainline is now crying out isn't more track but electrification...

Or 125mph?

 

[Esker-pades]

Or 125mph?

That would reduce capacity significantly.

 

[hexagon789]

That would reduce capacity significantly.

Not necessarily, not if you made other infrastructure improvements, and say electrified part of the line, using 110mph EMUs on stoppers.

 

[Esker-pades]

Not necessarily, not if you made other infrastructure improvements, and say electrified part of the line, using 110mph EMUs on stoppers.

EMUs may well shave a few minutes off the time of a stopping service, but I doubt it would be enough to accommodate 125mph running. Especially as Denham etc. need more services (2tph off peak) rather than the same.

 

[hexagon789]

EMUs may well shave a few minutes off the time of a stopping service, but I doubt it would be enough to accommodate 125mph running. Especially as Denham etc. need more services (2tph off peak) rather than the same.

Well it's got to be the next most logical route for 125mph running. Would possibly need more work than the MML, but I think it could be done in time.

 

[VT 390]

Which odd stopping patterns are we talking about? As I recall, Chiltern has awkward skip-stopping patterns both for its commuter services within London and for its long-distance services between High Wycombe and Banbury.

• For the commuter services, I would imagine the solution is to 4-track at least between South and West Ruislip, and perhaps beyond that towards High Wycombe, and to send the fast trains to Old Oak Common (obviously, post HS2), thereby allowing a decent metro service to Marylebone.
• West Of High Wycombe, I don't think the issue is track capacity. More likely to be Chiltern's attempts to speed trains up to serve the London-Oxford and London-Birmingham markets, to the detriment of intermediate stations. I'm guessing the solution there is get on with building HS2: That'll basically remove all the London-Birmingham passengers from Chiltern, allowing them to focus more on the intermediate stations (which is arguably what that line ought to have been doing in the first place).

I would say that there would still need to be at least 1 fast service per hour to serve Leamington Spa and Banbury otherwise these places journey times to London would be increased and I would even say that this would need to go to Marylebone not Old Oak Common as otherwise passengers who do not want to change on to Cross Rail will have no options to reach central London.

 

[The Planner]

Well it's got to be the next most logical route for 125mph running. Would possibly need more work than the MML, but I think it could be done in time.

It would need a massive amount of work, probably complete re-signalling and I suspect the embankments would need a fair bit of work.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would need a massive amount of work, probably complete re-signalling and I suspect the embankments would need a fair bit of work.

And the rest. Pretty much everything under the sleepers would need rework, and many of the sleepers too. And all the signalling as you say. And all the staff safety arrangements. And level crossings (if there are any, of any type).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would say that there would still need to be at least 1 fast service per hour to serve Leamington Spa and Banbury otherwise these places journey times to London would be increased and I would even say that this would need to go to Marylebone not Old Oak Common as otherwise passengers who do not want to change on to Cross Rail will have no options to reach central London.

Yes, I'd have thought running a mixture of fast and slow services would be sensible. What's not really sensible to my mind is the current pattern of skip-stopping everywhere, which means passengers wanting to make local journeys will tend to see very few trains - because almost everything either skips your origin station or your destination station.

I don't personally see a problem with Old Oak Common: There aren't after all many final destinations available from Marylebone without changing to the tube - and the only tube at Marylebone - the Bakerloo line - doesn't get you to many places in central London without a further change. From that point of view, arriving at Old Oak Common would arguably make it a lot easier to reach quite a few central London destinations - especially anywhere around the City. Or Canary Wharf (which isn't really central London but is a big commuting final destination).

 

[VT 390]

In the future when most of the relief line GWR services move to Crossrail there should be more high level platforms available at Paddington so would it be possible when building Old Oak Common provision is made for some Chiltern services to run it to Paddington?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well it's got to be the next most logical route for 125mph running. Would possibly need more work than the MML, but I think it could be done in time.

Aside from the difficulty that others have pointed out in doing the work, I don't really see it as next most logical at all. The Chilterns route is basically a commuter route. albeit slightly usurped by Chiltern's attempts to compete with Virgin for London-Birmingham passengers. From the point of view of London commuters (who must make up the vast majority of passengers), the only places far enough away to significantly benefit from 125mph running are arguably Bicester, Banbury, Leamington and Oxford. Those are all pretty small places, except for Oxford which would probably be better served by electrifying Didcot-Oxford to run improved services via Reading anyway.

I can think of several other lines where 125 mph running would give greater benefits (London-Norwich for example stands out, although I have no idea of the feasibility).

 

[swt_passenger]

In the future when most of the relief line GWR services move to Crossrail there should be more high level platforms available at Paddington so would it be possible when building Old Oak Common provision is made for some Chiltern services to run it to Paddington?

There won’t be spare platforms, because Paddington's platform numbers have already been reduced by one to allow lengthening of P12, and the rest are basically earmarked for additional IET services. That’s been the known situation for quite a few years.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

. . . . The Chilterns route is basically a commuter route. albeit slightly usurped by Chiltern's attempts to compete with Virgin for London-Birmingham passengers. From the point of view of London commuters (who must make up the vast majority of passengers),

Why do you believe that London commuters are the majority of Chiltern passengers? Do you have any figures? To me, it's noticeable that during the Monday to Friday peak periods when several Chiltern trains are more than four coaches long, most of them come from Oxford, Kidderminster or Birmingham. Off peak, Chiltern's patronage from London suburban stations is minimal. Three days ago I was at West Ruislip mid-afternoon and there were only three of us who boarded the train to Marylebone. At Leamington and Banbury in mid-afternoon there have always been several people who joined the train with me.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't personally see a problem with Old Oak Common: There aren't after all many final destinations available from Marylebone without changing to the tube - and the only tube at Marylebone - the Bakerloo line - doesn't get you to many places in central London without a further change. From that point of view, arriving at Old Oak Common would arguably make it a lot easier to reach quite a few central London destinations - especially anywhere around the City. Or Canary Wharf (which isn't really central London but is a big commuting final destination).

Marylebone is a short walk from Baker Street, which offers a much wider range of destinations by Underground including Crossrail at Bond Street or Farringdon. I think there's only space for one platform for Chiltern at OOC, so most trains would still have to run to Marylebone but hopefully whichever service goes to OOC will connect at, say, West Ruislip with the other services. Where OOC really scores over Marylebone is for getting to Heathrow.