Chiltern franchise replacement thoughts?

[Elecman]

It also wouldn't be legal.

What probably would make sense would be to extend third rail to Aylesbury (Vale Parkway?) and hand that branch over to the Metropolitan Line entirely, with 2tph of additional trains running Aylesbury, all stops to Amersham then fast to Baker St. That would take some trains out of Marylebone, freeing up much needed capacity.

You can forget any extension of 3rd Rail to anywhere. The ORR have decreed no more 3rd rail except for minor things like new sidings

 

[The Planner]

Wasn't Aylesbury to Claydon LNE Jn due to be dualled and now dropped so making the two bits of single line between Princes Risborough and Claydon LNE Jn (except Aylesbury) work in timetabling terms doesn't.

The timetable was proved to work during the work to de-scope it.

 

[The Planner]

Hopefully not too crayony.

• Crossrail 6tph extended to Aylesbury (4tph) and Chesham (2tph) using part of Dudding Hill Line (new chord to GWML) and taking over 'fast' lines from Wembley to Aylesbury. Electrified at 25kv
• Crossrail 6tph extended to Watford (4tph) and St Albans Abbey(2 tph). Using same GMWL/Dudding Hill Chord. (There is already a proposed redevelopment at Watford which could be amended to iclude extra platforms and revised connection to St Albans)
• Metropolitan line is Uxbridge and Watford (Croxley Link) Only
• Remaining Chiltern services/East West Rail via Princes Risborough.

This would need major work at the west end of Old Oak Common/Acton Wells Jn /North Acton. An Old Oak West station could be built for Overground(Richmond), Central Line (replace/absorb North Acton) and new terminus for Chiltern using a reopened Acton Northolt Line.

This is revisiting Crayola country. Crossrail was looked at in the last 5-6 years to go to Watford and Tring via connecting to the Acton Canal Wharf lines but got binned.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

This is revisiting Crayola country. Crossrail was looked at in the last 5-6 years to go to Watford and Tring via connecting to the Acton Canal Wharf lines but got binned.

Further back than that - as an option only - but not via the Chiltern , but a tunnelled route under Kensal Green cemetery to the site of then quiet TMD , and onto the LNW slow lines. Did not progress more than a desktop study.

 

[The Planner]

Was also looked at as an option for OOC HS2 station with the turnback stubs. If they agreed to it then the Wycombe single was dead forever.

 

[jimm]

I guess for some people it may be the price too. IIRC Birmingham Interchange is going to be next to Birmingham International, in which case passengers are already choosing Warwick Parkway over Birmingham International despite the latter offering a faster journey opportunity. If you're paying for your own season ticket, as most people do, then Chiltern is still likely to be cheaper from Warwick Parkway than HS2 will be from Birmingham Interchange. Whether the perceived increase in journey times coming with HS2 will be enough to get people to use that instead of Chiltern remains to be seen and can't really be calculated until HS2 actually comes into operation I'd imagine.

International may be a bit faster than a typical Warwick service now but it's not exactly HS2-scale faster, is it? Indeed the fastest limited-stop train from Warwick takes just a few minutes longer than International's 69-minute best time into London at the moment.

Road journey times from Worcester, to stick with that example, are basically the same, at 50 minutes or so, to Warwick Parkway or Birmingham International.

If the onward train journey on HS2 then takes 45 minutes instead of 90 on most of Chiltern's services, what do you think people on expense accounts, who aren't overly bothered about the environmental impact of driving 40 miles each way as part of their journey, will do?

There aren't armies of season ticket holders as far out from London as Warwickshire anyway at the moment, 75 to 90-minute journeys are considered at the outer end of what people can handle as a regular commute, but a 45-minute timing probably will redraw the commuting map somewhat.

 

[FQ]

International may be a bit faster than a typical Warwick service now but it's not exactly HS2-scale faster, is it? Indeed the fastest limited-stop train from Warwick takes just a few minutes longer than International's 69-minute best time into London at the moment.

Road journey times from Worcester, to stick with that example, are basically the same, at 50 minutes or so, to Warwick Parkway or Birmingham International.

If the onward train journey on HS2 then takes 45 minutes instead of 90 on most of Chiltern's services, what do you think people on expense accounts, who aren't overly bothered about the environmental impact of driving 40 miles each way as part of their journey, will do?

There aren't armies of season ticket holders as far out from London as Warwickshire anyway at the moment, 75 to 90-minute journeys are considered at the outer end of what people can handle as a regular commute, but a 45-minute timing probably will redraw the commuting map somewhat.

It's not that much slower than the WCML, agreed there, but International at the moment has a more frequent service (3tph if you exclude West Mids Trains stuff compared to 2tph for Chiltern) and the vast majority of those services have only two stops at Coventry and Rugby/MK/Watford compared to the Chiltern ones, of which the minimum you're likely to get is Leamington, Banbury and Wycombe (excluding that one that's non stop after Leam) yet people still use Warwick Parkway. At the end of the day if you're commuting long distances such as Worcester to London an extra 25 to 30 minutes isn't going to be a huge hardship if there's still a cost saving.

For people on expense accounts it's different, and if going from Worcester those people are more likely to go for Virgin at the moment as the cost factor is nothing but the convenience (3tph and fast journey times) is better. Many people aren't on expenses for their season tickets from home to work for which the cheap option will still look better. It may even be more attractive with HS2 there having taken some of the demand so they're more likely to get a seat.

 

[jimm]

It's not that much slower than the WCML, agreed there, but International at the moment has a more frequent service (3tph if you exclude West Mids Trains stuff compared to 2tph for Chiltern) and the vast majority of those services have only two stops at Coventry and Rugby/MK/Watford compared to the Chiltern ones, of which the minimum you're likely to get is Leamington, Banbury and Wycombe (excluding that one that's non stop after Leam) yet people still use Warwick Parkway. At the end of the day if you're commuting long distances such as Worcester to London an extra 25 to 30 minutes isn't going to be a huge hardship if there's still a cost saving.

For people on expense accounts it's different, and if going from Worcester those people are more likely to go for Virgin at the moment as the cost factor is nothing but the convenience (3tph and fast journey times) is better. Many people aren't on expenses for their season tickets from home to work for which the cheap option will still look better. It may even be more attractive with HS2 there having taken some of the demand so they're more likely to get a seat.

I'm really not talking about commuters. Like I say, there simply aren't that many people making such long journeys for four or five days a week, as it takes too much time out of their lives. There is a whole lot of detailed academic research on the subject - anything past a 90-minute journey each way is classed as 'extreme commuting'.

But there are a lot of people who travel for work reasons for a day here and there and they are the ones who will do things like drive from Worcestershire to Warwick to get on a train at the moment - and plenty of Worcester businesspeople do use Warwick rather than International.

Slash the journey time from Warwick and they would all flock there. Slash it from Interchange with HS2 and the odds are they will all go there - unless the new GWR trains and timetable and the opening of Worcestershire Parkway (making it a whole lot easier to park a car at a railway station serving the city of Worcester than it is now) change some minds. That may depend on long-term traffic trends on the M5 and M42.

 

[Meerkat]

There is a whole lot of detailed academic research on the subject - anything past a 90-minute journey each way is classed as 'extreme commuting'.

90 minutes door to door doesn’t get you very far does it? There must be thousands of folk commuting longer than that up from the coast to London.
In my office of less than 40 people there are two driving further than that!

 

[FQ]

I'm really not talking about commuters. Like I say, there simply aren't that many people making such long journeys for four or five days a week, as it takes too much time out of their lives. There is a whole lot of detailed academic research on the subject - anything past a 90-minute journey each way is classed as 'extreme commuting'.

But there are a lot of people who travel for work reasons for a day here and there and they are the ones who will do things like drive from Worcestershire to Warwick to get on a train at the moment - and plenty of Worcester businesspeople do use Warwick rather than International.

Slash the journey time from Warwick and they would all flock there. Slash it from Interchange with HS2 and the odds are they will all go there - unless the new GWR trains and timetable and the opening of Worcestershire Parkway (making it a whole lot easier to park a car at a railway station serving the city of Worcester than it is now) change some minds. That may depend on long-term traffic trends on the M5 and M42.

I agree that some passengers are likely to be persuaded over to HS2 when it opens but I don't think Chiltern is doomed when that happens because many will still go there. Some may try out HS2 to see what it's like and decide that it's better than the Chiltern service but if Chiltern got a fleet of new trains with the franchise change, so passengers aren't having to take a Turbostar for c. 100 miles each way then they could be persuaded to stay with Chiltern.

Maybe a fleet of mk5 loco hauled sets could be ordered for the Mainline services to Oxford and Birmingham. Passengers clearly already like the loco hauled sets so getting a more up to date version, maybe with the DVT also having some passenger accommodation (not sure if this is feasible given that the DVT is currently a guard's area). A 5 or 6 coach plus loco and DVT-style-thing, whilst it would reduce capacity in Marylebone if the diagrams were done well then that shouldn't be a problem. The 168s could then be used to replace 165s on local routes out of London, giving those local lines an improvement too.

 

[Clip]

There aren't armies of season ticket holders as far out from London as Warwickshire anyway at the moment, 75 to 90-minute journeys are considered at the outer end of what people can handle as a regular commute, but a 45-minute timing probably will redraw the commuting map somewhat.

It may have changed from my time there but when Warwick Parkway opened there was a glut of season tickets bought from there to London more than youd think

 

[Meerkat]

Don’t forget that HS2 will take you to an easy interchange onto Crossrail rather than into Marylebone.

 

[route:oxford]

If the onward train journey on HS2 then takes 45 minutes instead of 90 on most of Chiltern's services, what do you think people on expense accounts, who aren't overly bothered about the environmental impact of driving 40 miles each way as part of their journey, will do?

For people on expense accounts it's different, and if going from Worcester those people are more likely to go for Virgin at the moment as the cost factor is nothing but the convenience (3tph and fast journey times) is better. Many people aren't on expenses for their season tickets from home to work for which the cheap option will still look better. It may even be more attractive with HS2 there having taken some of the demand so they're more likely to get a seat.

The whole "Expense Account" is pure fantasy.

A few trips from time to time, yes, but HMRC are absolutely clear:-

You cannot claim for travelling to and from work, unless you’re travelling to a temporary place of work.

 

[Mikey C]

The Mk3s might be nice for London to Birmingham routes, but the 168s and 165s are the core of their operations, which are providing commuter services into London, on the sort of routes which elsewhere have Desiros and Electrostars, not end door stock.

Chiltern needs longer stock, it still runs many incredibly short services during the rush hour, and this is how passenger growth can be accommodated in the short to medium term. There will be big desire to remove diesels from London (and Birmingham) too, which will surely at a minimum require some partial electrification infrastructure and the use of bimodes or part battery operation if full electrification doesn't happen

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern needs longer stock, it still runs many incredibly short services during the rush hour

It also runs 2-car trains on the Aylesbury branch on weekend mornings, full and standing by the time they reach London, and without the excuse of expensive mileage based contracts like LM used to use as an excuse for 4-car Class 350 formations on weekends. This is very, very poor and they do need to pack it in.

 

[mr_jrt]

Basically, there are 3 options for Aylesbury to Neasden via Harrow:
1) Stay diesel. This isn't viable long-term, due to the upcoming ban on diesels in London (I haven't imagined this, have I?). Which means it's either:
2) Extend the 3rd rail to Aylesbury, and somehow find capacity on the Met for the additional services. The increase to 32tph on the core might make this viable, but turning 16tph at Baker St. will be a challenge due to the poor conflicting layout. Perhaps interventions there to reduce conflicting movements might make this more viable. There will still be a conflicting pressure for any additional capacity to serve Uxbridge or Watford though. Regardless, you would still need more trains though, and AFAIK the production line has closed, hence the extra train for the (sadly) aborted Croxley extension having already being built.
3) Cut the Met back to Rickmansworth with a short length of additional track from Watford South junction to keep it segregated (Rickmansworth needs to be retained for the stabling there). You then hand over the fast lines from Harrow to Rickmansworth over to Chiltern. These can then be upgraded as required, so 90-odd mph becomes more feasible, as does OHLE. You can then look at extending platforms up to 8-car lengths. Capacity at Marylebone will increasingly continue to be an issue.

My personal preference is #3.

As for electrifying the Chiltern line as a whole, the obvious phases to me seem like #3 above is a good first phase and gets you Neasden Junction to Marylebone on the "mainline" route wired. Neasden Junction to High Wycombe gets you the Chiltern Metro wired, High Wycombe to Oxford and Bicester North gets the outer suburban services converted, and then (or indeed, simultaneously) you can look at the other end in Birmingham: Wire up Moor St. as as part of the Camp Hill chord projects, and/or the services to Leamington Spa. That then leaves you with the infill of Leamington Spa to Bicester North and the whole line is wired so the "mainline" services can switch over last.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There could well be a (4) - 25kV electrify Amersham to Aylesbury, and order, for the Met, a new build of OHLE plus third rail stock. It doesn't have to be S-stock, anything that fits will do.

Or (5) - build some third-rail battery units which could charge while on the third rail. Vivarail might be able to knock something up

I assume your (3) means the Met only running to Watford rather than Amersham if I read right?

 

[bramling]

There could well be a (4) - 25kV electrify Amersham to Aylesbury, and order, for the Met, a new build of OHLE plus third rail stock. It doesn't have to be S-stock, anything that fits will do.

Or (5) - build some third-rail battery units which could charge while on the third rail. Vivarail might be able to knock something up

I assume your (3) means the Met only running to Watford rather than Amersham if I read right?

Politically I can’t see the Met ever going to Aylesbury again. Chiltern seems to be the preferred option for many north of Rickmansworth. Even now one could probably slim the Met Amersham service down to a peak-hour city commuter service and people would be happy, especially if they got more (and perhaps longer) Chiltern services in compensation. Notice how the off-peak fast Amersham services *haven’t* returned in the years since they disappeared.

Realistically it’s probably much easier just to keep Aylesbury via Amersham as a diesel service, and electrify the rest of Chiltern on AC. In an ideal world one would separate off the Met fast lines and dedicate this over to Chiltern, avoiding all the complications associated with running Chiltern trains with Seltrac signalling and over LU infrastructure, but this would have required a lot of joined-up thinking, like coordinating the electrification with the Met resignalling, but this boat has already sailed.

From a programming point of view it seems fairly neat. Firstly remodel Rickmansworth and make that the Met northern terminus. Probably build a completely new station to act as an interchange, replacing the awkward current curved station with its short platforms (on the site of the supermarket built on the former station car park?). Then run Marylebone to Aylesbury as a diesel service running over de-electrified LU infrastructure on LU legacy signalling until such time as resignalling to mainline standards, separating Harrow-on-the-Hill in the process, finally electrifying as a final phase. One could even save some money by running with cascaded 321s!

The Met loses the Amersham section which is operationally a pain for various reasons, and avoids all the hassle of Chiltern having to run over its infrastructure.

One issue which springs to mind is whether Marylebone could handle extra services, but there’s scope to max out train lengths which would perhaps mean the number of extra services might be minimal. Politically there would have to be some sweetener for those wishing to reach the city - perhaps a Met service from Harrow to Aldgate in the peaks allowing for easy interchange? This is where it perhaps falls down as whilst it’s all operationally good for the railway, it doesn’t necessarily provide the capacity in the way it’s needed / wanted most at peak times.

This is all a bit dreamful though, as I don’t think the Amersham route is going to look much different to today in a decade or two’s time. The interaction between DFT, TFL, Chiltern and Network Rail makes it too complex compared to doing tinkering of low-lying fruit on the High Wycombe route!

 

[jimm]

As for electrifying the Chiltern line as a whole, the obvious phases to me seem like #3 above is a good first phase and gets you Neasden Junction to Marylebone on the "mainline" route wired. Neasden Junction to High Wycombe gets you the Chiltern Metro wired, High Wycombe to Oxford and Bicester North gets the outer suburban services converted, and then (or indeed, simultaneously) you can look at the other end in Birmingham: Wire up Moor St. as as part of the Camp Hill chord projects, and/or the services to Leamington Spa. That then leaves you with the infill of Leamington Spa to Bicester North and the whole line is wired so the "mainline" services can switch over last.

Bicester North does not get the outer suburban services converted. Since the start of the Oxford service almost nothing starts/turns back at Bicester North. You have to go into Banbury. That is where there are lots of passengers and a light maintenance depot, where trains are stabled overnight.

Going into Banbury means you are then tied in to whatever does or does not happen in terms of electrification between Oxford and the West Midlands.

 

[Mikey C]

With all the talk of cutting back the Met to Rinkmansworth, what about Chesham, which if anything is a more important Met station than Amersham now?

I imagine a lot of current Met passengers from Amersham/Chesham like the through trains to the City or the cross platform interchange at Finchley Road, whereas with trains to Marylebone you either have the inadequate Bakerloo line service or the extra walk to Baker Street

 

[Bletchleyite]

With all the talk of cutting back the Met to Rinkmansworth, what about Chesham, which if anything is a more important Met station than Amersham now?

I imagine a lot of current Met passengers from Amersham/Chesham like the through trains to the City or the cross platform interchange at Finchley Road, whereas with trains to Marylebone you either have the inadequate Bakerloo line service or the extra walk to Baker Street

That is a very good point. Perhaps the Met could run to Chesham only, with interchange onto Chiltern at Chalfont and Latimer?

Building an EMU or bi-mode with the capability to run on fourth-rail plus one other (be that 25kV, battery, hydrogen or diesel, though ideally not the latter) should not be rocket science, particularly if it would be possible to have the Met's four-rail setup changed to be the same as that on the Bakerloo on the WCML, i.e. centre rail grounded and fourth rail at 750VDC, which I'd imagine the S-stock is probably specced to handle. In that case, a Class 769 would be suitable as built without fourth-rail shoes.

 

[si404]

With all the talk of cutting back the Met to Rinkmansworth, what about Chesham, which if anything is a more important Met station than Amersham now?

Which is why Chesham sees just 1.13m, while Amersham sees more than twice that at 2.32m LU (and 1.94m NR)...

I guess getting people out of that cold and radio-less bowl that is Chesham is twice as important as getting people to/from Amersham

I imagine a lot of current Met passengers from Amersham/Chesham like the through trains to the City or the cross platform interchange at Finchley Road, whereas with trains to Marylebone you either have the inadequate Bakerloo line service or the extra walk to Baker Street

Absolutely. And lets not forget the low fares!

The off-peak semi-fast trains weren't a problem that caused zone 9 to react negatively to the changes, the problem was how they interacted with the 2tph Chiltern - either getting overtaken around Harrow (Amersham's problem), or not being able to change onto them for a faster ride into London (Chesham's problem).

There's also the Marylebone capacity issue - is diverting existing trains away from Baker Street to Marylebone a sensible use of capacity upgrades at Marylebone? Watford and Uxbridge aren't in need of more trains on the Met (that's Amersham, at least at peak times), and I can't see merely making things neat and tidy by removing a quirk being a decent justification for doing it.

 

[cjp]

It also runs 2-car trains on the Aylesbury branch on weekend mornings, full and standing by the time they reach London, and without the excuse of expensive mileage based contracts like LM used to use as an excuse for 4-car Class 350 formations on weekends. This is very, very poor and they do need to pack it in.

Full and standing = profitable.
Can Chiltern be sure a longer train would bring in more revenue as apposed to giving a more comfortable journey to passengers at Chiltern's expense? Or, more to the point, can DfT see this would be the case?

 

[Chester1]

Why have proposals been made for Chiltern to terminate at Oak Common? It makes sense for some long distance services to terminate there when Marylebone reaches capacity. However, Crossrail has west bound services terminating at Paddington. Why not electrify to High Wycombe and run something like 4tph of stopping services through Crossrail?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Full and standing = profitable.
Can Chiltern be sure a longer train would bring in more revenue as apposed to giving a more comfortable journey to passengers at Chiltern's expense? Or, more to the point, can DfT see this would be the case?

In my view it should be a franchise breach to have any standing passengers on trains off-peak (i.e. not Monday-Friday 7-10am and 4-7pm).

 

[si404]

Why not electrify to High Wycombe and run something like 4tph of stopping services through Crossrail?

Because that doesn't deal with the issue at Marylebone (due to the need to still have stopping services to the Sudburys, etc - so all you are doing is terminating those services earlier, rather than Wycombe) and doesn't increase capacity on the middle-distance stuff.

Chiltern to OOC is, to some extent, serving Wycombe, Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross to London flows, but the trade off in quality of that aspect vs a Liz line branch allows for additional paths to be cleared into Marylebone for extra Oxford/Midlands and/or inner trains ('Chiltern Metro' or via Amersham) while still providing more tph from those places to London. The Route Study gives a theoretical service pattern of diverting the Banbury and Wycombe trains to OOC, making the Aylesbury via HW a stopper and adding the following 5 services to destinations (vs an extra three with Crossrail): OOC-Gerrards Cross stopper, OOC-HW stopper, OOC-MK semi-fast, Marylebone-MK semi-fast and Marylebone-Stratford semi-fast. It's not how I would do it, but it shows their aims: boost the services to both South Bucks and the South Midlands.

The biggest factor though is the TfL nature of the #PurpleTrain - TfL are unlikely to be willing these days to fund infrastructure and a service that barely serves the GLA area.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there actually any need for the innersuburban Chiltern stations at all, with the possible exception of Wembley Stadium which could be served on matchdays / for events only, and Northolt Park which isn't anywhere near anything else? Should they simply close? They are all reasonably near Tube stations which far more people use.

 

[A0]

The challenge which the London - Amersham - Aylesbury part of the Chiltern line has is capacity against LUL demands.

I'm sure once-upon a time the plan was to quad from Moor Park northwards - that *might* still be doable, but won't be cheap and would necessitate rebuilding Rickmansworth, Chorleywood and Chalfont & Latimer stations as a minimum.

That would allow a separate 'pair' of tracks which could be electrified at 25kv - whether anyone is prepared to pay for it though......

 

[si404]

That would allow a separate 'pair' of tracks which could be electrified at 25kv - whether anyone is prepared to pay for it though......

And why would they? The problem isn't track capacity there, but track capacity south of there (eg the desire to over-serve Watford). Oh, and train capacity on the Chiltern services due their lack of rolling stock...

They are all reasonably near Tube stations which far more people use.

If one has to consult a timetable and perhaps wait an hour for a train, one would take the frequent tube: even to get to Marylebone despite it being very indirect! If the Chiltern stations had double their current service they'd have more than double their ridership (despite still not being TUAG).

You might be able to ditch the lesser Sudbury (or at least give it just a Parliamentary service), but closing the other stations would be difficult politically. 4tph has been a major London Travelwatch aim, so they will really kick a fuss about lowering from 1tph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, electrification and bringing in high-acceleration EMUs would be of massive help to creating paths to serve these stations. Chiltern stopping services are glacial, and that's even with DOO and so the "ding ding, ding ding" time taken out. There are about to be a load of Class 360s going spare which would be ideal for Chiltern innersuburban services.

For instance, all stations Wycombe to Marylebone takes something like 45 minutes. I reckon you'd be able to get 15 minutes off that with electrification, the right EMUs and targetted linespeed improvements.

Though having said that it's about the same distance as Tring and that has the same running time, roughly, for an all stops. Mind you if you want glacial operation, the south WCML is it, time wasted all over the shop such as about 20 seconds before door release which could be removed by switching to driver release...