Chiltern Mainline Upgrades post TPE Mk5As

[A S Leib]

. I simply see it as spreading the load just like South Central places have fast services to both Victoria and London Bridge.

Isn't that case in large part providing direct City and West End services, whilst the only connection Marylebone really provides which Paddington doesn't is the Jubilee line from Baker Street (as Oxford to Metropolitan stations north of Finchley Road probably isn't a massive flow)?

 

[BerkshireRails]

Sudbury is not a highly populated area, with much growth. It's very suburban and low density, and doesn't have huge Central London commuting. I suspect if both stations closed, it wouldn't be a huge loss. But - for the actual users, it's a quick link to town, definitely.

Wembley on the other hand, has had a ton of development and has changed a lot, and demand has followed.

For the Oxford piece - I think we have to define or not get hung up on what is fast and what is semi-fast.

Oxford will always be at least the third stop, but I think you would have something like:
Marylebone - High Wycombe - Princes or Haddenham - Bicester - Oxford Parkway - Oxford as one pattern.

And a slower pattern could include both Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross - or you alternate them in the above, like PR/Haddenham.

Semi-Fast is all existing stops apart from between High Wycombe and London Marylebone which are replaced by an enhanced local service.

Oxford Fasts will call at High Wycombe, Princess Risborough, Bicester Village and Oxford Parkway before arriving at Oxford. The Oxford Fast is an additional service on top of the current 2tph Oxford Semi-fasts.

Considering that the tube takes three quarters of an hour from Sudbury to central London (maybe slightly less with an OSI at Park Royal / Hanger Lane) compared to 16min from Sudbury Hill Harrow / Harrow Road to Marylebone, a frequent and reliable Chiltern stopper would certainly convert a considerable amount of tube passengers over to NR. 4tph is about the minimum needed to make it somewhat turn-up-and-go as Piccadilly line frequency (6tph at the moment IIRC) would still remain a factor in which route people take.

There would be a High Wycombe to London Marylebone all stations metro service running at a minimum frequency of 4tph, hence the need to four track and grade separated junctions on the corridor.

The existing timetable has diesel accelerations and long dwell times, so stopping services take up disproportionate capacity. With (battery) electric traction and 30-second dwells the capacity impact of those stopping services then can be reduced to a point where you can run a half-hourly service with an overtake at West or South Ruislip.

Hence why I think it would be possible to get Oxford fasts to a sub 60 minute journey time from the current 88 minute. It should be fully electrified without battery traction.

 

[cle]

Proper four tracking of the Ruislips and out to Denham (inc rebuilding that station properly) should enable enough of a dynamic stretch.

I doubt the likes of Beaconsfield and its reinstated loops would do much as the wait for an overtake is a killer. Unless it was used as a turnback.

High Wycombe itself is a problem. Ideally it would have a north facing bay (Oxford or Aylesbury/MK locals) as well as maybe two south facing. I guess it’s all east/west oriented actually. But the curve makes it all too hard. And maybe means every train should call.

 

[150219]

Proper four tracking of the Ruislips and out to Denham (inc rebuilding that station properly) should enable enough of a dynamic stretch.

I doubt the likes of Beaconsfield and its reinstated loops would do much as the wait for an overtake is a killer. Unless it was used as a turnback.

High Wycombe itself is a problem. Ideally it would have a north facing bay (Oxford or Aylesbury/MK locals) as well as maybe two south facing. I guess it’s all east/west oriented actually. But the curve makes it all too hard. And maybe means every train should call.

If there was to be a 4-line enhancement out to Denham, the likelihood of that is about the same as extending that all the way through Beaconsfield too.

Through South Harefield, there's a cutting which would need digging out - probably to the detriment of the HS2 alignment.

The viaduct over the Grand Union Canal would need rebuilding or a separate new viaduct alongside.

Compared to that, the movement of the station platforms back at Denham is small fry.

If all of that is doable, then why not just move the station at High Wycombe too.

 

[BerkshireRails]

London Marylebone to High Wycombe Metro (4-8tph), would call at the intermediate stops of West Hampstead, Wembley Stadium, Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Northolt Park, South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Denham, Denham Golf Club, Gerrards Cross and Seer Green and Jordans.

If there was to be a 4-line enhancement out to Denham, the likelihood of that is about the same as extending that all the way through Beaconsfield too.

Through South Harefield, there's a cutting which would need digging out - probably to the detriment of the HS2 alignment.

The viaduct over the Grand Union Canal would need rebuilding or a separate new viaduct alongside.

Compared to that, the movement of the station platforms back at Denham is small fry.

If all of that is doable, then why not just move the station at High Wycombe too.

High Wycombe makes sense to be the end of the quad track as it has some rather sharp curves, so going to standard double track alignment would allow for straightening of the alignment. The cutting could be dug out to the south over the former planned additional tracks between West Ruislip and Denham.

 

[The Planner]

The 2tph Oxford Semi-Fasts would still call at Oxford Parkway, Islip, Bicester Village, Haddenham & Thame Parkway, Princess Risborough & High Wycombe, with electrifaction I can see an average journey time of 60 minutes from the current 88 minutes. The removal of calls at Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross & Wembley Stadium should save in-between 2-4 minutes per stop based on Network Rail Kent saying a stop adds 2 minutes and Network Rail Wessex saying a stop adds 4 minutes.

To do the all stopper Metro services will require infrastructure upgrades there might be justification in closing Sudbury & Harrow Road to save the cost of Rebuilding it for the sake of 4 trains per weekday per direction. With ticket acceptance on Piccadilly line.

Where on earth is 28 minutes coming from?

 

[BerkshireRails]

Where on earth is 28 minutes coming from?

12 minutes comes from the removal of station stops, the 6 minutes comes from the better acceleration rate of electric trains compared to diesel trains, and 10 minutes comes from reaching 110mph versus 75mph. That 10-minute number comes from straight up comparing the run time between 165 75mph pathing and 168 100mph pathing.

 

[The Planner]

12 minutes comes from the removal of station stops, the 6 minutes comes from the better acceleration rate of electric trains compared to diesel trains, and 10 minutes comes from reaching 110mph versus 75mph. That 10-minute number comes from straight up comparing the run time between 165 75mph pathing and 168 100mph pathing.

It is 9 minutes for the three stops. You won't get a minutes saving from EMU acceleration from a station stop either, more like a ½. Chilterns is 100mph, not 110mph. If you compare 1Y28 (165) in the December timetable vs 1Y65 (168), the 168 is only 7 minutes quicker.

 

[BerkshireRails]

It is 9 minutes for the three stops. You won't get a minutes saving from EMU acceleration from a station stop either, more like a ½. Chilterns is 100mph, not 110mph. If you compare 1Y28 (165) in the December timetable vs 1Y65 (168), the 168 is only 7 minutes quicker.

Chiltern Mainline would be upgraded to 110mph as part of electrification.

 

[Bald Rick]

Accepting this is a fantasy proposal and not serious, but is the c£10bn this would cost really the best use of cash on the railway? And what would be the benefit that pays it back, considering Chiltern’s total revenue is currently around £200m pa.

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern Mainline would be upgraded to 110mph as part of electrification.

Says who?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Accepting this is a fantasy proposal and not serious, but is the c£10bn this would cost really the best use of cash on the railway? And what would be the benefit that pays it back, considering Chiltern’s total revenue is currently around £200m pa.

Of course it's not a sensible use of ca £10 billion. Any noticeable increase in Chiltern passengers could be accommodated by lengthening trains and, perhaps, two or three platforms at Marylebone. The pre-Covid timetable with longer trains would be more than sufficient.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Of course it's not a sensible use of ca £10 billion. Any noticeable increase in Chiltern passengers could be accommodated by lengthening trains and, perhaps, two or three platforms at Marylebone. The pre-Covid timetable with longer trains would be more than sufficient.

Platforms can already take 8-car trains, apart from platform 4 at London Marylebone, which would require the BNP building to be demolished to enable a platform extension, and it might also enable a platform 7 at London Marylebone. It is more of a bit of fun than anything to see what the best upgrades would be for Chiltern Mainline with unlimited money.

For those wondering, here is the layout I came up with for tracking London Marylebone to High Wycombe, as far as Sudbury & Harrow Road is done.

 

[Class15]

Platforms can already take 8-car trains, apart from platform 4 at London Marylebone, which would require the BNP building to be demolished to enable a platform extension, and it might also enable a platform 7 at London Marylebone. It is more of a bit of fun than anything to see what the best upgrades would be for Chiltern Mainline with unlimited money.

For those wondering, here is the layout I came up with for tracking London Marylebone to High Wycombe, as far as Sudbury & Harrow Road is done.View attachment 186298View attachment 186298View attachment 186299View attachment 186300View attachment 186301View attachment 186302View attachment 186303View attachment 186304View attachment 186305View attachment 186306

Drawings on a piece of paper are great, but how is this working in reality? There’s no space at West Hampstead for example.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Drawings on a piece of paper are great, but how is this working in reality? There’s no space at West Hampstead for example.

Unfortunately, it will require the purchase of nearby properties.

 

[London Trains]

Its probably slightly off-topic, but I think a full-scale West Hampstead interchange station with Chiltern, Met line and maybe even EMR services stopping would be ideal to have. However, it would not come cheap, as all three stations would have to be resited, and the Homebase, car dealerships and some other buildings would need to be demolished.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Its probably slightly off-topic, but I think a full-scale West Hampstead interchange station with Chiltern, Met line and maybe even EMR services stopping would be ideal to have. However, it would not come cheap, as all three stations would have to be resited, and the Homebase, car dealerships and some other buildings would need to be demolished.

Chiltern Railways suggested exactly that in the 2000s, before a lot of the housing was built, which was the impetus for adding West Hampstead as a stop in my idea, so it is very much on topic.

 

[Bald Rick]

Chiltern Railways suggested exactly that in the 2000s, before a lot of the housing was built, which was the impetus for adding West Hampstead as a stop in my idea, so it is very much on topic.

I happen to know the people at Chiltern who suggested it. It needed property back then, most of which was built in Victorian times. It was never a goer.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Platforms can already take 8-car trains, apart from platform 4 at London Marylebone, which would require the BNP building to be demolished to enable a platform extension, and it might also enable a platform 7 at London Marylebone.

Platforms on the east side at Marylebone frequently have to accommodate two separate train sets, and sometime three. If those train sets become longer, the platforms will also need to be longer. We can comfortably forget about destroying new buildings in the Marylebone area.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Platforms on the east side at Marylebone frequently have to accommodate two separate train sets, and sometime three. If those train sets become longer, the platforms will also need to be longer. We can comfortably forget about destroying new buildings in the Marylebone area.

Only platforms 1 & 2 can be extended without the removal of buildings. If other platforms need extending, the BNP building has to go, to enable platforms 3-6 to be extended.

 

[mr_jrt]

One has to wonder if some sort of arrangement could be found that resulted in the BNP building going, but in compensation the owners getting a replacement in the air rights over the whole of the expanded station.

Would shifting things over slightly by abolishing the wall siding and then shifting the platforms over achieve anything worthwhile, platform-wise?

I'm unfortunately not convinced that Marylebone is worth improving, though. Its poor connections and general (relatively) quiet location just aren't going to have the draw needed for the kind of major investment needed to justify expansion. IMHO, you'd be better off getting the suburban services onto Crossrail and the intercity services into Paddington, or failing that, OOC, abet with 4-6 platforms, not the 2 proposed.

 

[SynthD]

Would shifting things over slightly by abolishing the wall siding and then shifting the platforms over achieve anything worthwhile, platform-wise?

They would be tight platforms that struggle with the crowds, bike racks and that mobility vehicle. There would need to be a new access route to the further platforms, eg a giant ramp over the reinstated part of platform 4.

Unfortunately, it will require the purchase of nearby properties.

The paper plans may help you work out how wide the final railway land is, but you’ll also need to add on a bit more for temporary construction space. With that, you can then colour a map showing properties that need demolishing and roughly count them. This should include Lords (just the Nursery Ground fortunately), the hotel named recently, the hospital, and that’s just the first third of a mile.

 

[NCT]

They would be tight platforms that struggle with the crowds, bike racks and that mobility vehicle. There would need to be a new access route to the further platforms, eg a giant ramp over the reinstated part of platform 4.

The paper plans may help you work out how wide the final railway land is, but you’ll also need to add on a bit more for temporary construction space. With that, you can then colour a map showing properties that need demolishing and roughly count them. This should include Lords (just the Nursery Ground fortunately), the hotel named recently, the hospital, and that’s just the first third of a mile.

And then work out some numbers to the right of a pound sign!

 

[BerkshireRails]

One has to wonder if some sort of arrangement could be found that resulted in the BNP building going, but in compensation the owners getting a replacement in the air rights over the whole of the expanded station.

Maybe not the full station, but rather the Country end without the overall roof to maintain adequate day light in the busiest parts of the station. Similar to London Liverpool Street.

is worth improving, though. Its poor connections and general (relatively) quiet location just aren't going to have the draw needed for the kind of major investment needed to justify expansion. IMHO, you'd be better off getting the suburban services onto Crossrail and the intercity services into Paddington, or failing that, OOC, abet with 4-6 platforms, not the 2 proposed.

You probably then need to do a similar level of works to Paddington in that case. However if you just do Elizabeth Line, then you can scrap the four tracking between South Ruislip and London Marylebone. As the extra suburban capacity comes from up to 12tph Elizabeth Line which could take over the High Wycombe, Gerrards Cross & Aylesbury Metro services via Denham.

 

[JonathanH]

As the extra suburban capacity comes from up to 12tph Elizabeth Line which could take over the High Wycombe, Gerrards Cross & Aylesbury Metro services via Denham.

The last thing Elizabeth Line reliability needs is Shenfield trains continuing east of Old Oak Common and interacting with other services, or is your vision that it would have its own set of tracks to High Wycombe, as a result of four-tracking?

 

[BerkshireRails]

The last thing Elizabeth Line reliability needs is Shenfield trains continuing east of Old Oak Common and interacting with other services.

The original Crossrail plan had Elizabeth Line trains running from Shenfield to the Chiltern Mainline. Plus some of the reliability issues should be resolved by removal of Liverpool Street high level services.

The paper plans may help you work out how wide the final railway land is, but you’ll also need to add on a bit more for temporary construction space. With that, you can then colour a map showing properties that need demolishing and roughly count them. This should include Lords (just the Nursery Ground fortunately), the hotel named recently, the hospital, and that’s just the first third of a mile.

The line would be in a tunnel under Lords so I am struggling to see how it would need to be purchased.

 

[JonathanH]

The original Crossrail plan had Elizabeth Line trains running from Shenfield to the Chiltern Mainline.

The original plans were to run to Aylesbury via Harrow-on-the Hill, rather than the Chiltern Mainline.

Plus some of the reliability issues should be resolved by removal of Liverpool Street high level services.

Those only run in the high peak. Reliability suffers whenever there is a problem outside the Core.

 

[D365]

The last thing Elizabeth Line reliability needs is Shenfield trains continuing east of Old Oak Common and interacting with other services...

Surely you mean west of

 

[BerkshireRails]

The original plans were to run to Aylesbury via Harrow-on-the Hill, rather than the Chiltern Mainline.

However, it makes more sense to run via Denham rather than Harrow. Due to the greater potential of running via Denham, it would also offer a starting point for Chiltern electrification, between South Ruislip & Aylesbury.

Those only run in the high peak. Reliability suffers whenever there is a problem outside the Core.

However, everything running into Liverpool Street at a low level all day reduces conflicts and improves reliability. As you said, the non-core parts are the issue. Network Rail is currently working on upgrades like resignalling with ETCS and OLE improvements.

It might be that you first extend the Abbey Wood to Paddington services on the Chiltern Mainline, depending on timetable planning rules. You may have to recast the Elizabeth Line timetable; arguably, the majority of your conflicts are on the Great Western Mainline, with the Great Eastern Mainline in principle being segregated, with Elizabeth Line services only running on Electrics and the Greater Anglia and Freight only on the Mains. I know there is a half hourly c2c service on the weekends on the Electrics however how long will that still be possible to operate.

 

[JonathanH]

Surely you mean west of

Oops