Chiltern Railways major improvement proposal

[Meerkat]

I’d agree with a 20 year franchise with an Evergreen 4 type arrangement covering electrification, with a suitable reduction in track access charges over the period of the franchise to recover the upfront electrification costs thus keeping the costs out the Treasuries dead hand on NR Enhancements and the final infrastructure handed over to NR on completion, rather than an vertically integrated DBO franchise

If it’s to be handed back to NR then they will have to approve everything to their way of working and that will stifle development.

 

[Elecman]

If it’s to be handed back to NR then they will have to approve everything to their way of working and that will stifle development.

No, it wouldn’t it didn’t stifle Evergreen 1-3. The OLE would have to be built to NR standards using the most suitable NR approved series OLE equipment but doing that means it’s would be accepted on completion

 

[Ianno87]

Aren't the peak workings somewhat about boosting capacity on the suburban route west of Birmingham as well as providing token direct London trains?

It's mainly to access the stabling at Stourbridge Junction but with a side-benefit of extra morning peak capacity into Brum (not so much in the evening peak as the trains are relatively late through Birmingham)

My few instances of experience of the evening trains suggested that through demand is relatively low.

 

[Meerkat]

No, it wouldn’t it didn’t stifle Evergreen 1-3. The OLE would have to be built to NR standards using the most suitable NR approved series OLE equipment but doing that means it’s would be accepted on completion

Didn’t they end up getting NR to do it?
Exactly - built to NRs way of doing things. A few years back that might have meant insisting on OLE like on GWEP!

 

[Elecman]

Yes they did but that didn’t stifle the schemes, On Chiltern with a maximum linespeed speed of 100/125, (will never be 140) the stuff used on Northwest electrification would be perfectly acceptable.

 

[The Planner]

You are in the know but wouldn’t it be better served by improving Oxford to Birmingham, via Banbury? Maybe with the idea of focusing more on Swindon-Oxford-Birmingham once HS2 steals most of the XC traffic from Reading southward.

You would do both, terminating more at Banbury from the south isnt really a goer.

 

[Aictos]

Personally I would focus on making more of the Oxford services locohauled, it seems a little strange to see 2 car 168s on that route, then focus on the other London to Birmingham services being loco hauled or ~6 car 168s.

Birmingham is further though as it takes just over two hours at the moment while Oxford is just over 1hr 20 and if the Birmingham market can be grown using loco hauled stock, it then frees up the DMUs to be used on Oxfords.

After all, as I've posted in #Post21, Chiltern isn't competing with Virgin Trains/Avanti West Coast on speed but are on comfort and while I can't complain about the Class 168s on the Birmingham route and yes I have used them before, I feel the loco hauled sets are better used on the Birminghams and use the cascaded Class 168s internally to strengthen the Oxfords and other services.

It's just a pity that Chiltern wasn't given first pick of the ex LNER Mk4s including DVTs as replacements for the Mk3s or if that wasn't possible then look at the Greater Anglia Mk3s and pick 30 Mk3s to convert to Chiltern standards include fitting power doors etc to create 5 more sets of 6 coach Mk3s which would mean all Birmingham's being operated as Mk3s and freeing up the Class 168s to strengthen other services.

 

[si404]

Why Wycombe-Birmingham? Is it really that important a market they can’t just change at Banbury?

Wycombe is an urban area of 136,607 (2018 est) - over 3/4 the size of Oxford (and about the same size as Watford). You want to drop its direct hourly Birmingham trains in favour of Birmingham-Oxford ones as 2tph to Oxford isn't enough for there - if Oxford deserves 3 or 4tph to Birmingham (which I don't doubt) then Wycombe deserves, at the very least, to keep its 1tph!

There's also a wider area that it forms a northward railhead for - one of the areas most negatively affected by HS2. Building HS2 and not then improving the service between Birmingham and places between it and London is one thing, but killing the direct service entirely because of the new line is what Sir Humphrey would call a courageous decision!

Not to forget that forcing Leamington - London, Bucks to Birmingham and Wycombe - Warwickshire journeys to change trains will really help add to the traffic on the M40...

What you are asking for is effectively an undoing of Project Evergreen - leaving the CML as a commuter branch into London and nothing more.

 

[Energy]

It's just a pity that Chiltern wasn't given first pick of the ex LNER Mk4s including DVTs as replacements for the Mk3s or if that wasn't possible then look at the Greater Anglia Mk3s and pick 30 Mk3s to convert to Chiltern standards include fitting power doors etc to create 5 more sets of 6 coach Mk3s which would mean all Birmingham's being operated as Mk3s and freeing up the Class 168s to strengthen other services.

I honestly don't think the future of Chiltern is with converting more loco hauled mk3s, the mk3s are ~40 years old and not worth investing the money in to bring them to modern standards. I personally would like to see any available 3 car 170s go to Chiltern, is TfW planning to keep their 170s in the long term? If not the 3 car units could definitely help at Chiltern.

 

[Aictos]

I honestly don't think the future of Chiltern is with converting more loco hauled mk3s, the mk3s are ~40 years old and not worth investing the money in to bring them to modern standards. I personally would like to see any available 3 car 170s go to Chiltern, is TfW planning to keep their 170s in the long term? If not the 3 car units could definitely help at Chiltern.

Well replace them with Mk4s then, simple...

 

[xotGD]

Well replace them with Mk4s then, simple...

Or place an order for Mark 5s.

 

[Meerkat]

Wycombe is an urban area of 136,607 (2018 est) - over 3/4 the size of Oxford (and about the same size as Watford). You want to drop its direct hourly Birmingham trains in favour of Birmingham-Oxford ones as 2tph to Oxford isn't enough for there - if Oxford deserves 3 or 4tph to Birmingham (which I don't doubt) then Wycombe deserves, at the very least, to keep its 1tph!

Wycombe is a suburb facing London. Oxford is a city, a university, and significant tourist attraction.

 

[Energy]

Well replace them with Mk4s then, simple...

Or place an order for Mark 5s.

What advantage does loco hauled bring? The mk5s were expensive. IETs are fairly cheap due to the development cost being taken on by the IEP.

 

[JonathanH]

What advantage does loco hauled bring? The mk5s were expensive. IETs are fairly cheap due to the development cost being taken on by the IEP.

There really isn't any need for either IETs or locomotive-hauled stock on the Chiltern line. If it were electrified something sensible like a 385 or 720 would be absolutely fine for the route. However, this is all many years away. In the short term the Turbos aren't going anywhere.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I’d agree with a 20 year franchise with an Evergreen 4 type arrangement covering electrification, with a suitable reduction in track access charges over the period of the franchise to recover the upfront electrification costs thus keeping the costs out the Treasuries dead hand on NR Enhancements and the final infrastructure handed over to NR on completion, rather than an vertically integrated DBO franchise

So how would Network Rail fill the 'hole' left by reduced Track Access Charges for 20 years? They are supposed to be related to the cost of operating, maintaining and renewing the track after all.

 

[Tio Terry]

No, it wouldn’t it didn’t stifle Evergreen 1-3. The OLE would have to be built to NR standards using the most suitable NR approved series OLE equipment but doing that means it’s would be accepted on completion

Any new electrification would need to conform to the Energy TSI and be EU compatible (Yes, I know we have left the EU but current legislation ties the UK in to EU TSI's), so it's not NR Standards. But, to make life easy, using NR standards would kill both birds with one stone!

 

[Aictos]

Wycombe is a suburb facing London. Oxford is a city, a university, and significant tourist attraction.

I think you might need to use some geography lessons as Wycombe isn't a suburb but rather a large market town, there is a BIG difference between the two terms.

Suburb

In the United Kingdom and in Ireland, suburb merely refers to a residential area outside the city centre, regardless of administrative boundaries. Suburbs, in this sense, can range from areas that seem more like residential areas of a city proper to areas separated by open countryside from the city centre.

Town

(in the UK) a town of moderate size where a regular market is held.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wycombe might technically be a market town, but it doesn't have the feel of a classic one at all. I'd just call it a large town. It's a bit more like a slightly nicer version of Northampton (which does justify trains to Birmingham as well as London), or quite similar to Bedford or Aylesbury.

 

[Meerkat]

Wycombe might technically be a market town, but it doesn't have the feel of a classic one at all. I'd just call it a large town. It's a bit more like a slightly nicer version of Northampton (which does justify trains to Birmingham as well as London), or quite similar to Bedford or Aylesbury.

Northampton is nearer to Birmingham than London, Wycombe is barely outside the M25!

 

[PauloDavesi]

Foe many people living in the south of Birmingham, Solihull, Warwickshire, and even Worcestershire towns, like Kidderminster & Stourbridge, Chiltern is a much easier option for rail journeys to London than Avanti or LMR. Especially when needing to connect to a local service to get to & from the station.

 

[Meerkat]

Foe many people living in the south of Birmingham, Solihull, Warwickshire, and even Worcestershire towns, like Kidderminster & Stourbridge, Chiltern is a much easier option for rail journeys to London than Avanti or LMR. Especially when needing to connect to a local service to get to & from the station.

They will soon be able to change at Curzon Street for much faster trains to much better connected London termini. If you don’t live near the station then just drive to Brum Interchange.

 

[PauloDavesi]

For trips to Lords, Marylebone is the best option.

Also, a station the far side of the NEC complex is less convenient, and further than using Solihull Station, adding time and costs.

There is no perfect solution, but for many, Chiltern is a very good option.

 

[Energy]

They will soon be able to change at Curzon Street for much faster trains to much better connected London termini. If you don’t live near the station then just drive to Brum Interchange.

In some places "just drive to Brum Interchange" is just too far in comparison to Chiltern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In some places "just drive to Brum Interchange" is just too far in comparison to Chiltern.

I doubt most people will drive to Birmingham Interchange who don't already drive to Birmingham International. The time saving for Brum-London is not that great that it would change behaviour to that extent, I reckon, other than one-offs along the lines of "let's go to London on the cool high speed train to give it a go".

 

[si404]

Wycombe is a suburb facing London. Oxford is a city, a university, and significant tourist attraction.

Oxford is bigger and more famous and all that - I'm not doubting that. I said: "if Oxford deserves 3 or 4tph to Birmingham (which I don't doubt) then Wycombe deserves, at the very least, to keep its 1tph!"

Even with your understating the importance of Wycombe, it surely is worth a third of Oxford? Especially as we're also adding in Leamington-London traffic, etc.

Northampton is nearer to Birmingham than London, Wycombe is barely outside the M25!

How about Watford as a comparator? Watford doesn't have a uni (unlikely Wycombe), is a similar size to Wycombe (about 7% more population), is inside the M25 (and the London Travel to Work Area, whereas Wycombe isn't as it's its own place), yet it has an ICWC service (plus the London Midland services) to Birmingham. How absurd would it be if, when London-Birmingham long-distance traffic is removed from the WCML and a more regional operation can take place, Watford lost its direct service to Birmingham and, you had to change to get north of Northampton. That would be crazy! But that's effectively what you are suggesting for Wycombe by turning back the clock to the mid-90s and terminating everything from Marylebone at Banbury.

I doubt most people will drive to Birmingham Interchange who don't already drive to Birmingham International. The time saving for Brum-London is not that great that it would change behaviour to that extent, I reckon, other than one-offs along the lines of "let's go to London on the cool high speed train to give it a go".

They probably would if Meerkat's silly proposal to force Leamington-London traffic to change at Banbury (or double back via central Birmingham) happens.

Or, more likely, they'd just drive south.

 

[Meerkat]

They probably would if Meerkat's silly proposal to force Leamington-London traffic to change at Banbury (or double back via central Birmingham) happens.

Or, more likely, they'd just drive south.

This is back to ‘everywhere should be connected directly to everywhere’.
The Chiltern Birmingham Services are not a huge market and have alternatives, or simple changes.
If there are paths on XC then keep them going, but if there are more important services that could be using those paths then Chiltern are not a priority, especially not once HS2 is open.
And that’s without considering whether the Birmingham Services use up Banbury-London capacity that would not be better used for commuter services.
Chiltern can be two suburban services, without importing delays into each other.

 

[Energy]

Oxford is bigger and more famous and all that - I'm not doubting that. I said: "if Oxford deserves 3 or 4tph to Birmingham (which I don't doubt) then Wycombe deserves, at the very least, to keep its 1tph!"

Even with your understating the importance of Wycombe, it surely is worth a third of Oxford? Especially as we're also adding in Leamington-London traffic, etc.
How about Watford as a comparator? Watford doesn't have a uni (unlikely Wycombe), is a similar size to Wycombe (about 7% more population), is inside the M25 (and the London Travel to Work Area, whereas Wycombe isn't as it's its own place), yet it has an ICWC service (plus the London Midland services) to Birmingham. How absurd would it be if, when London-Birmingham long-distance traffic is removed from the WCML and a more regional operation can take place, Watford lost its direct service to Birmingham and, you had to change to get north of Northampton. That would be crazy! But that's effectively what you are suggesting for Wycombe by turning back the clock to the mid-90s and terminating everything from Marylebone at Banbury.
They probably would if Meerkat's silly proposal to force Leamington-London traffic to change at Banbury (or double back via central Birmingham) happens.

Or, more likely, they'd just drive south.

The people around Leamington and Warwick Parkway etc are used to a nice, clean, affordable Chiltern train direct to London. All the times I have been and used Warwick Parkway it is not quiet with trains being quite busy

 

[cle]

Chiltern's remit works well. It's a solid route - regional and local commuting to London, the same on the Birmingham end, and an alternative option for folks going between them - plus pleasant, operationally sensible stations to terminate the trains. It's not just Banbury, but Leamington and Solihull's London services too. No need to mess with it. Their London-Birmingham is one of the only routes with true competition. Plus niche markets of Bicester and Stratford, even Warwick, and now with an alt option to Oxford too (again, rare competition) - plenty to mitigate HS2 and the WCML being faster.

I'd say Chiltern should or could do more from Oxford. Make it a second or third home, and usurp GWR in services and presence. For example, an hourly Birmingham or even Stratford service. It would be a good precedent to be more bullish there if they have their eyes on inheriting the EWR services down the line, given that they'll already have the Aylesbury-MKC one.

Plus talks of the Cowley service involve their trains too. I'd also think a third train per hour could run to Marylebone to Oxford, more stopping in nature.

 

[si404]

The people around Leamington and Warwick Parkway etc are used to a nice, clean, affordable Chiltern train direct to London. All the times I have been and used Warwick Parkway it is not quiet with trains being quite busy

Indeed, that's why Meerkat is barking up the wrong tree with the undoing of the last 20 years on the route.

This is back to ‘everywhere should be connected directly to everywhere’.

Not at all. This is 'don't break stuff without good reason'. Everywhere-to-everywhere would be adding new direct services, such as Swindon-Birmingham.

There's zero reason why you can't get your aim of more Birmingham-Oxford service without adding trains to Banbury-Leamington by changing the two London-Birmingham Chiltern trains from:
Marylebone-Wycombe-Banbury-Leamington-Warwick Pkwy-Solihull-Moor Street
Marylebone-Bicester N-Banbury-Leamington-Warwick-Warwick Pkwy-Dorridge-Solihull-Moor Street-Snow Hill
to
Oxford-Banbury-Leamington-Warwick Pkwy-Solihull-Moor Street
Marylebone-Wycombe-Bicester N-Banbury-Leamington-Warwick-Warwick Pkwy-Dorridge-Solihull-Moor Street-Snow Hill

Leamington and Warwick Pkwy lose half their London trains (Solihull doesn't matter as HS2 does serve that area well), but otherwise the change doesn't have much negative effect despite replacing half the London-Birmingham service on the corridor to increase Oxford-Birmingham by 50%. Of course, this is too rational and doesn't meet your ideology of returning the Chiltern Mainline to it's Network South East status of the Chiltern line - a sleepy commuter branch that doesn't get past Banbury.

 

[Meerkat]

Of course, this is too rational and doesn't meet your ideology of returning the Chiltern Mainline to it's Network South East status of the Chiltern line - a sleepy commuter branch that doesn't get past Banbury.

You appear to have the ideology that through trains should remain whatever.
i just don’t think that’s an automatic assumption and the benefits of alternative use of the paths should be looked into once HS2 is open. If there aren’t better uses then carry on.