Aylesbury Vale Parkway's service

[Bletchleyite]

Aylesbury Vale Parkway when built was just in the middle of a field. But now Aylesbury is expanding quickly, and it's increasingly surrounded by housing, some of it quite high density, and businesses. In some ways "Aylesbury North" or 'Aylesbury Berryfields" might be a better name now as it's certainly in the urban area on one side, though the view to the west is still open fields (for how long, one wonders). (Note I'm not suggesting renaming it, that would cost money and bring little or no benefit, it's just illustrative of how it's really not so much a Parkway as it was!)

Do people think we'll reach the point where Chiltern consider extending all services back to/from there due to increased demand? I can certainly see a need in the not too distant future, I can see it getting more custom than Stoke Mandeville which is similarly sited in demand terms albeit in a more traditional area.

 

[Mikey C]

Aylesbury Vale Parkway when built was just in the middle of a field. But now Aylesbury is expanding quickly, and it's increasingly surrounded by housing, some of it quite high density, and businesses. In some ways "Aylesbury North" or 'Aylesbury Berryfields" might be a better name now as it's certainly in the urban area on one side, though the view to the west is still open fields (for how long, one wonders). (Note I'm not suggesting renaming it, that would cost money and bring little or no benefit, it's just illustrative of how it's really not so much a Parkway as it was!)

Do people think we'll reach the point where Chiltern consider extending all services back to/from there due to increased demand? I can certainly see a need in the not too distant future, I can see it getting more custom than Stoke Mandeville which is similarly sited in demand terms albeit in a more traditional area.

It's still a parkway station, i.e. somewhere designed with a big car park to cater for drivers who can park at the station and continue on the train. I notice a nearby school is called Aylesbury Vale, so it seems that the Aylesbury Vale name is catching on.

In an ideal world EWR will continue through there, and reach MK...

 

[30907]

The weekday trains (via Amersham) that don't serve Parkway are (1) the slow(er) peak services and (2) half the offpeaks - except that several of those have been chopped throughout.

The peak service is probably as much as the single line can take (there's a peculiar counter-flow gap in the evening, but that's all).
Offpeak I wonder if there's demand - maybe when the full service is reinstated?

 

[12LDA28C]

The weekday trains (via Amersham) that don't serve Parkway are (1) the slow(er) peak services and (2) half the offpeaks - except that several of those have been chopped throughout.

The peak service is probably as much as the single line can take (there's a peculiar counter-flow gap in the evening, but that's all).
Offpeak I wonder if there's demand - maybe when the full service is reinstated?

In the extreme offpeak, since the May timetable change the only services via the Met all go through to Aylesbury Vale Parkway. There are no Aylesbury terminators / starters between 1100 and 1430.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2023 ==

I notice a nearby school is called Aylesbury Vale, so it seems that the Aylesbury Vale name is catching on.

I don't think Chiltern can claim the credit for that - the 'Vale of Aylesbury' has been a geographical region for centuries.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is it likely Chiltern’s long term plans are waiting to see what EWR end up doing - that’s supposed to provide an additional platform, although as discussed in the EWR threads it seems to be on the furthest back burner…

 

[12LDA28C]

In an ideal world EWR will continue through there, and reach MK...

Indeed, plans were drawn up to add a second platform at AVP for MK-bound services.

 

[mike57]

In an ideal world EWR will continue through there, and reach MK..

The problem is that there is very little population along the line once you go NW of Aylesbury. I can remember having to pick some parts up a few years ago from a specialist one man machine shop not far from Calvert, and I was surprised at how remote that area feels, considering you are about 50 miles from the centre of London as the crow flys, it really does feel like the empty quarter. Would the flow from the Chiltern line to MK be enough to justify reopening?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's still a parkway station, i.e. somewhere designed with a big car park to cater for drivers who can park at the station and continue on the train. I notice a nearby school is called Aylesbury Vale, so it seems that the Aylesbury Vale name is catching on.

Yes, for clarity I wasn't actually proposing renaming it, rather just discussing how its role may be shifting a bit. There are now probably over 10K people within walking or cycling distance of it, but with the car park only being £3 midweek and free on Sundays it wouldn't surprise me if most in fact did drive. Though the car park is I think smaller than that at Aylesbury itself.

I've been using it on and off for a change from the WCML, depending on convenience at the other end. It's quite civilised being so small and you get on at the origin.

In an ideal world EWR will continue through there, and reach MK...

Interestingly the station is built on the wrong side to allow for that, there will need to be significant work to allow a through train to call, you'd need to build the other side of the island and raise the track on the through side as it's a bit lower. Though it does appear the base of the formation is wide enough to allow it to be doubled.

I suspect the reason for it being on the "wrong side" is DOO sighting as it still uses mirrors and is on a very slight curve. Though maybe it was purely so it could be turned into an island, it is sort of shaped like half of one!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2023 ==

The problem is that there is very little population along the line once you go NW of Aylesbury. I can remember having to pick some parts up a few years ago from a specialist one man machine shop not far from Calvert, and I was surprised at how remote that area feels, considering you are about 50 miles from the centre of London as the crow flys, it really does feel like the empty quarter. Would the flow from the Chiltern line to MK be enough to justify reopening?

There's a decent (but slow) bus service and a large flow of cars. It'd probably not be profitable, but how many regional lines are? I reckon an hourly DMU with a reasonably early start and finish around 2200-2300 would wash its face to the extent any of Northern does, for instance. It might also create other flows e.g. commuting between places like High Wycombe and MK (either way).

 

[swt_passenger]

Interestingly the station is built on the wrong side to allow for that, there will need to be significant work to allow a through train to call, you'd need to build the other side of the island and raise the track on the through side as it's a bit lower.

The detailed EWR TWA drawings show that’s exactly what is intended, although it won’t be the full length.

 

[12LDA28C]

Interestingly the station is built on the wrong side to allow for that, there will need to be significant work to allow a through train to call, you'd need to build the other side of the island and raise the track on the through side as it's a bit lower. Though it does appear the base of the formation is wide enough to allow it to be doubled.

I suspect the reason for it being on the "wrong side" is DOO sighting as it still uses mirrors and is on a very slight curve. Though maybe it was purely so it could be turned into an island, it is sort of shaped like half of one!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2023 ==

The station was built with provision for future expansion onto the EWR spur in mind, hence the platform not being immediately adjacent to the station building on the Up side. Plans were drawn up years ago for the island platform to be extended to meet the Claydon line if and when the spur was built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2023 ==

The detailed EWR TWA drawings show that’s exactly what is intended, although it won’t be the full length.View attachment 137310

That's very interesting, I was always told that the plan was for a single line spur between AVP and Claydon, I'm not sure why a second track would be necessary, especially given that there is already a goods loop immediately north of Aylesbury to allow passing of freight trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's very interesting, I was always told that the plan was for a single line spur between AVP and Claydon, I'm not sure why a second track would be necessary, especially given that there is already a goods loop immediately north of Aylesbury to allow passing of freight trains.

I think the drawing probably predates the decision to drop the second track. It’s difficult to find the sequence of events now.

Maybe when drawn they intended to allow for freights to/from Calvert to run independently, ie sort of two parallel single lines; but subsequent decisions have moved the waste recovery sidings to the other side of EWR, perhaps that’s changed the original reasoning.

 

[The Planner]

It was never planned for a complete single line from AVP, original timetables required trains to pass each other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was never planned for a complete single line from AVP, original timetables required trains to pass each other.

Are the proposals to do it cheaper perhaps to do a single line and have a slightly cack-handed timetable which would allow passing once the "mainline" is joined, perhaps?

 

[12LDA28C]

Are the proposals to do it cheaper perhaps to do a single line and have a slightly cack-handed timetable which would allow passing once the "mainline" is joined, perhaps?

Why would that timetable be 'cack-handed'? Aylesbury to Claydon is 11 miles and running time would be around 10 minutes or less. If you can't construct a timetable where trains don't need to pass each other in that short distance then the railway really is in trouble.

 

[The Planner]

Why would that timetable be 'cack-handed'? Aylesbury to Claydon is 11 miles and running time would be around 10 minutes or less. If you can't construct a timetable where trains don't need to pass each other in that short distance then the railway really is in trouble.

Don't take AVP to Claydon in isolation though, your problem is Bletchley and MK as well as Risborough to Aylesbury as that was binned off as soon as it was going to be 1tph.

 

[Mikey C]

There's a decent (but slow) bus service and a large flow of cars. It'd probably not be profitable, but how many regional lines are? I reckon an hourly DMU with a reasonably early start and finish around 2200-2300 would wash its face to the extent any of Northern does, for instance. It might also create other flows e.g. commuting between places like High Wycombe and MK (either way).

MK is a major regional centre, both for work and leisure, so I'm sure there would be enough demand to support a High Wycombe to MK service via Aylesbury.

 

[swt_passenger]

MK is a major regional centre, both for work and leisure, so I'm sure there would be enough demand to support a High Wycombe to MK service via Aylesbury.

Nevertheless, DfT had explicitly ruled it out by the time the TWA inquiry took place.