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

[Bald Rick]

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.

I think ‘London Commuters’ means commuters travelling to London in the morning, regardless of their origin.

 

[Esker-pades]

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.

Is that because of a lack of demand, or because of a poor service throttling demand? I've argued the latter.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Is that because of a lack of demand, or because of a poor service throttling demand? I've argued the latter.

You've asserted the latter; you haven't argued it. I know of no reason to imagine there's any great unfulfilled demand.

We have in this forum several threads dealing with routes in different parts of the country where, it seems, leaving passengers behind is a frequent occurrence. If there was a huge peak period demand at, say, Northolt Park, the up platform would be crowded for the train to Marylebone and people would be unable to get on the train. I have never heard of that happening.

The empirical evidence suggests that demand from outer North-West London and suburban Buckinghamshire is not huge. Residents of Sudbury, Northolt and Ruislip are not lobbying the Mayor of London for electrification of this line, even though he is making a big song and dance about reducing emissions. Central Line trains leaving West Ruislip are lightly loaded even during the rush hour. The Metropolitan Line does not have an intense service from Chesham and Amersham even in the rush hour. At Rayners Lane Station, Piccadilly Line passengers have to wait far longer for a train that do passengers in other parts of London using the Central, Victoria or Jubilee Lines. HS2 is far more unpopular in Buckinghamshire than in Cheshire or Lancashire, yet no-one in Buckinghamshire is demanding that money should be spent improving their local rail services instead of wasting it on HS2 - in marked contrast to elsewhere! There is no evidence of a need for Chiltern to provide an extra shoulder for some massive burden.

Most persuasive of all is Chiltern's attitude. Chiltern have demonstrated repeatedly that they are commercially astute. The success of their Oxford venture proves the point. They clearly have no great ambitions for London suburban traffic and I'm willing to trust their judgement.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's quite a well argued post. I think the situation is subtler than you suggest though.

You've asserted the latter; you haven't argued it. I know of no reason to imagine there's any great unfulfilled demand.

We have in this forum several threads dealing with routes in different parts of the country where, it seems, leaving passengers behind is a frequent occurrence. If there was a huge peak period demand at, say, Northolt Park, the up platform would be crowded for the train to Marylebone and people would be unable to get on the train. I have never heard of that happening.

I think there's a difference. In the places where trains are leaving passengers behind, there's basically no other choice for getting to the local large city (Manchester or wherever) - so people are going to have to go to the station in the hope of getting on a train even if they know it's difficult getting on. For the Chiltern line, that's not the case. Just about every station in the London area is within walking distance of a tube station that gives an alternative route into central London. So any suppressed demand won't manifest itself in big crowds for the small number of trains running - it'll manifest itself in people heading for the nearby tube stations if they want to get into central London - even if Chiltern would have been more convenient - or probably driving if their destination is not in central London but would've been served by Chiltern.

So the case for better metro services on the Chiltern line isn't about easing pressure on Chiltern itself: It's more about easing pressure on the tube lines (which may not be crowded at West Ruislip, but are overcrowded nearer central London - so any passengers you can get off them would be welcome), and also about providing more choice: Giving people the option to make journeys by rail that are currently only realistic by car or sometimes bus. For example, a link to the Overground at West Hampstead would allow a huge range of orbital journeys to/from NorthWest London. And we know from the success of the overground that an awful lot of people in London want to make orbital journeys that don't go into the centre.

Most persuasive of all is Chiltern's attitude. Chiltern have demonstrated repeatedly that they are commercially astute. The success of their Oxford venture proves the point. They clearly have no great ambitions for London suburban traffic and I'm willing to trust their judgement.

Well yes, and that's going to be because, in general, long distance services are much more profitable than metro services. As far as I'm aware, metro services have huge benefits in terms of easing congestion in urban areas, but are rarely directly profitable. And I would think the reason runs like this: As an example, in half an hour, a 'mainline' service might travel about 30-40 miles. You can charge people quite a lot for taking them that distance in half an hour! But in the same time, a metro service might only travel about 10 miles. It'll cost about the same to run, because you're using a train and staff for the same amount of time, but you can't charge people very much for taking them only 10 miles in half an hour. Hence metro services don't make profits, and hence why a commercially astute private operator is not going to be very interested in running them if their franchise doesn't demand it. But that doesn't mean they are any less useful to the country and the economy as a whole! (That's all my own reasoning - I haven't seen it anywhere official, so I hope it's correct).

 

[Bald Rick]

Well yes, and that's going to be because, in general, long distance services are much more profitable than metro services. As far as I'm aware, metro services have huge benefits in terms of easing congestion in urban areas, but are rarely directly profitable. And I would think the reason runs like this: As an example, in half an hour, a 'mainline' service might travel about 30-40 miles. You can charge people quite a lot for taking them that distance in half an hour! But in the same time, a metro service might only travel about 10 miles. It'll cost about the same to run, because you're using a train and staff for the same amount of time, but you can't charge people very much for taking them only 10 miles in half an hour. Hence metro services don't make profits, and hence why a commercially astute private operator is not going to be very interested in running them if their franchise doesn't demand it. But that doesn't mean they are any less useful to the country and the economy as a whole! (That's all my own reasoning - I haven't seen it anywhere official, so I hope it's correct).

That’s pretty much it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think it’s noteworthy that TfL have never included the Chiltern routes in their various proposals for Overground or Crossrail takeovers of suburban networks. I suspect this is because they believe the existing plans for increased capacity on tube lines in that general area are already capable of meeting likely future demand.

 

[Esker-pades]

I think it’s noteworthy that TfL have never included the Chiltern routes in their various proposals for Overground or Crossrail takeovers of suburban networks. I suspect this is because they believe the existing plans for increased capacity on tube lines in that general area are already capable of meeting likely future demand.

There are very few stations that are actually in the London Zones before one gets into Buckinghamshire. Unlike SouthEastern et al, there isn't an extensive suburban network inside London's boundaries.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

There are very few stations that are actually in the London Zones before one gets into Buckinghamshire.

The Great Central was a late comer to the area, by which time the Metropolitan Railway had an extensive local network. I suppose in a different universe, the London Transport Board of the 1930s and 1940s could have extended the Bakerloo line from Neasden to West Ruislip/Denham instead of or as well as extending the Central line alongside the GWR.

If Chiltern ever runs to Old Oak Common, perhaps there's a case for reopening the main line platforms at stations such as Greenford and one or two others.

 

[VT 390]

If Chiltern ever runs to Old Oak Common, perhaps there's a case for reopening the main line platforms at stations such as Greenford and one or two others.

Whilst I like the idea of Greenford having a faster service to London I do not think the number of platforms planned for Chiltern at Old Oak Common would be enougth for this and longer distance services.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That's quite a well argued post. I think the situation is subtler than you suggest though.



I think there's a difference. In the places where trains are leaving passengers behind, there's basically no other choice for getting to the local large city (Manchester or wherever) - so people are going to have to go to the station in the hope of getting on a train even if they know it's difficult getting on. For the Chiltern line, that's not the case. Just about every station in the London area is within walking distance of a tube station that gives an alternative route into central London. So any suppressed demand won't manifest itself in big crowds for the small number of trains running - it'll manifest itself in people heading for the nearby tube stations if they want to get into central London - even if Chiltern would have been more convenient - or probably driving if their destination is not in central London but would've been served by Chiltern.

So the case for better metro services on the Chiltern line isn't about easing pressure on Chiltern itself: It's more about easing pressure on the tube lines (which may not be crowded at West Ruislip, but are overcrowded nearer central London - so any passengers you can get off them would be welcome), and also about providing more choice: Giving people the option to make journeys by rail that are currently only realistic by car or sometimes bus. For example, a link to the Overground at West Hampstead would allow a huge range of orbital journeys to/from NorthWest London. And we know from the success of the overground that an awful lot of people in London want to make orbital journeys that don't go into the centre.



Well yes, and that's going to be because, in general, long distance services are much more profitable than metro services. As far as I'm aware, metro services have huge benefits in terms of easing congestion in urban areas, but are rarely directly profitable. And I would think the reason runs like this: As an example, in half an hour, a 'mainline' service might travel about 30-40 miles. You can charge people quite a lot for taking them that distance in half an hour! But in the same time, a metro service might only travel about 10 miles. It'll cost about the same to run, because you're using a train and staff for the same amount of time, but you can't charge people very much for taking them only 10 miles in half an hour. Hence metro services don't make profits, and hence why a commercially astute private operator is not going to be very interested in running them if their franchise doesn't demand it. But that doesn't mean they are any less useful to the country and the economy as a whole! (That's all my own reasoning - I haven't seen it anywhere official, so I hope it's correct).

I think this is going to boil down to what each person thinks the railway should do.

The points you've made are valid if you believe the railway should leave no stone unturned and spare no expense to increase patronage even by a very small amount. I don't believe that. My starting point is the old American maxim: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As mentioned previously, there is ample evidence that commuters in North West London and urbanised South Buckinghamshire are content with their railway provision, which most certainly is not the case in many other parts of the country. Those commuters have not given their proxy to railway enthusiasts and have not requested anyone to be indignant on their behalf! The situation isn't broke and doesn't need fixing.

Your assessment of the economics of commuter railways is correct as far as it goes but does not include the significance of shared route costs or the critical effect of commuter numbers. Certainly in many cases, subject to shared route costs, the profit per passenger on a commuter railway is less than per passenger on long, Inter-city routes. However, if a TOC can make even a small profit per passenger on a commuter route, then, if the number of passengers is enormous, there will still be worthwhile profits.

Example 1: South West Trains out of Waterloo was until recently one of the two most profitable franchises, and commuter services provided a very large percentage of their income, possibly most. It is inconceivable that the longer routes to Portsmouth, Weymouth and Exeter produced such a surplus that it both financed a loss on commuter services and created a big overall profit. Instead, it is conceivable that the huge commuter market made a substantial contribution to that profit.

Example 2: C2C Railways between Fenchurch Street and Shoeburyness is almost entirely a commuter railway and has always been financially successful.

The lesson here to any TOC is that they should judge the scale of the commuter traffic they are likely to win. It is evident that Chiltern have made the calculation and have concluded their London commuter market is not worth the effort. As customer satisfaction with Chiltern Railways is high, the service is not broke and doesn't need fixing.

All of this is additional to the issue of Marylebone Station which has little spare capacity. My guess is that with lengthened platforms, Marylebone will be able to handle longer trains far more easily than extra trains. The cost of platform lengthening will be minimal compared with the cost of 4 tracking through London and across those Buckinghamshire hills.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I think it’s noteworthy that TfL have never included the Chiltern routes in their various proposals for Overground or Crossrail takeovers of suburban networks. I suspect this is because they believe the existing plans for increased capacity on tube lines in that general area are already capable of meeting likely future demand.

A good point and one I overlooked. It's also significant that when Crossrail was being planned, it was decided not to use the old Wycombe Lines from Old Oak to South Ruislip.

 

[option]

Somewhat connected as Ruislip was brought up;

any ideas as to why there isn't a station where the Central line crosses the Piccadilly & Met lines?

 

[Metrailway]

The title says it all really.

With an assymetric timetable (certainly in terms of stopping pattern), the Chiltern Main Line really needs new tracks in order to run a more frequent service, certainly for the commuter stations.

Generally, I'm assuming that all additional tracks would be within the current railway boundaries, without the requirement to purchase additional land.

I travel regularly on the line and much of the route can be four tracked with 'relative' ease.

Between Moor Street and Lapworth, there used to be at least 4 tracks in the past and this can be restored on railway owned land.
As most of the land between Lapworth and Warwick Parkway is greenfield, it would not be difficult to purchase additional land for 4 tracks if required. The route through Warwick and Leamington would be difficult to four track due to built up land.
South of Leamington to Ashendon Junction should be easy to 4 track. There should be enough land through Banbury and Bicester to allow 4 tracks on existing railway land. Allowing 4 tracks through Aynho Junction will probably require additional greenfield land purchases.

On the GW&GC Joint stretch between Ashendon Junction and Northholt Junction, road underbridges and overbridges were designed to allow easy four tracking. So you can largely four track throughout with the only issue with this bit of the railway is the route through High Wycombe which is now built up. However, a station loop is possible if required. You may also need additional greenfield land purchases at Saunderton gap, and for the viaducts at Gerrards Cross and Denham
South of Northholt Junction, I believe there is sufficient railway land to quad the line till South Harrow Tunnel. This would require staggering the platforms at Northolt Park. After South Harrow Tunnel, a lot of the surplus railway land has now been sold to housing so it is difficult to quadruple but station loops are possible.

Between Neasden Junction and Canfield Place, I can't see anyway to quad the line without major demolition. Between Canfield Place and Marylebone, passive provision was made by the GCR for additional tracks so there is provision in place for an additional bridge over the WCML as well as additional tunnel mouths at Canfield Place and three tunnels under Lord's. So in theory, this stretch can be quadrupled.

In reality, if you were required to quad the London section of the Chiltern Main Line, you would probably tunnel from Marylebone to Old Oak Common to join the New North Main Line, just like HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

Example 1: South West Trains out of Waterloo was until recently one of the two most profitable franchises, and commuter services provided a very large percentage of their income, possibly most. It is inconceivable that the longer routes to Portsmouth, Weymouth and Exeter produced such a surplus that it both financed a loss on commuter services and created a big overall profit. Instead, it is conceivable that the huge commuter market made a substantial contribution to that profit.

Depending on your definition of commuter service... but AIUI the longer distance services (those that operate to Woking and beyond, or Staines and beyond) do indeed cross subsidise the inner suburban operation.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Depending on your definition of commuter service... but AIUI the longer distance services (those that operate to Woking and beyond, or Staines and beyond) do indeed cross subsidise the inner suburban operation.

Where South West Trains is concerned, my definition of commuter services is anything from Andover, Winchester and Haslemere inwards! They are all substantial commuter railheads.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where South West Trains is concerned, my definition of commuter services is anything from Andover, Winchester and Haslemere inwards! They are all substantial commuter railheads.

Further out than that, too. Some morning peak trains are pretty full from Southampton ParkwY - they aren’t day trippers.

 

[si404]

Whilst I like the idea of Greenford having a faster service to London I do not think the number of platforms planned for Chiltern at Old Oak Common would be enougth for this and longer distance services.

I'm not sure a stop at Greenford is mutually exclusive with Aylesbury via HW and Banbury semi fast services - which are what's proposed as 'long distance' services from OOC. The proposals also want two platforms at OOC and 4tph, allowing stopping services to HW as well (with stopping services from Marylebone continuing).

The mid-distance trains make sense to divert to OOC, as they serve the main commuter markets (other than the Metros which need to serve places that can't be easily got to from OOC) but don't force the main leisure markets to a station that's walkable from nowhere of interest (Marylebone has two Royal Parks, a tourist honeypot, and London's main shopping street) and only one line to London (that serves the leisure parts of London less well than the Bakerloo - St Paul's and the Tower are the only big things better on the Liz, though a walk to Baker Street would be less walking, just mid journey).

 

[The Planner]

Two platforms aren't in the last set of plans Ive been privvy to though.

 

[si404]

Two platforms aren't in the last set of plans Ive been privvy to though.

in which case we're looking at 2tph, rather than 4tph - mostly likely diversion of mid distance rather than supplemental services for South Bucks.

Either way, Greenford is still viable (if never being more probable than highly unlikely, and with 2tph less likely than with 4) and the Birmingham/Oxford/Stratford won't move out of Marylebone (nor inner services as geography blocks that). The basic points I'm making don't change with your insider knowledge.

 

[The Planner]

Depends on how risky they want to be with turnrounds.