Chiltern Railways major improvement proposal

[Energy]

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.

What else would use these paths though? Chiltern mainline services were quite busy (before Covid 19 obviously), cutting Chiltern services will send people to probably LNWR on the already overcrowded WCML. Chiltern is doing fine as it is, I would like more services but that can come with more rolling stock, something they are a little short of as shown by their short forms, something some people don't seem to quite understand why an extra carriage can't materialise out of thin air.

 

[Meerkat]

What else would use these paths though? Chiltern mainline services were quite busy (before Covid 19 obviously), cutting Chiltern services will send people to probably LNWR on the already overcrowded WCML. Chiltern is doing fine as it is, I would like more services but that can come with more rolling stock, something they are a little short of (pre Covid).

A Swindon-Birmingham limited stopper.
A cross Oxford stopper.
More Container trains.

 

[Energy]

A Swindon-Birmingham limited stopper.
A cross Oxford stopper.
More Container trains.

So these places don't deserve the trains they currently get and are popular to London but what they really need is a train to Swindon?

 

[Meerkat]

So these places don't deserve the trains they currently get and are popular to London but what they really need is a train to Swindon?

rather self important of them! It would be a significant improvement for Swindon to be able to get directly to Oxford and Birmingham

 

[Energy]

rather self important of them! It would be a significant improvement for Swindon to be able to get directly to Oxford and Birmingham

Chiltern currently has issues with short forms and overcrowding, they shouldn't expand to get Swindon passengers. More services should be introduced if/when Chiltern get new stock but not before. If the need from Swindon to Oxford is that great GWR would probably have had a service put in the DA for it. Anyway you don't seem to mind Chiltern passengers being forced to change trains then Swindon to Birmingham is simple, just change train at Reading.

 

[Meerkat]

Chiltern currently has issues with short forms and overcrowding, they shouldn't expand to get Swindon passengers. More services should be introduced if/when Chiltern get new stock but not before. If the need from Swindon to Oxford is that great GWR would probably have had a service put in the DA for it. Anyway you don't seem to mind Chiltern passengers being forced to change trains then Swindon to Birmingham is simple, just change train at Reading.

Why are you assuming it would be a Chiltern service, especially as I was proposing them not going north of Banbury!
Changing at Banbury en route is somewhat more convenient than going all the way to Reading and back!

 

[Esker-pades]

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.

How would the current IC services be split up post-HS2? One will still require relatively fast services between intermediate stations on the Chiltern Main Line (CML) and the termini (London and Birmingham) even if few are using those fast services all the way through. Once one gets far enough north/west on the CML such that it would be more attractive for passengers to use HS2, one has already picked up passengers wanting to get to Birmingham. There are loads of services across the UK that are rarely used from the first to last stops, but the intermediate flows are such that any curtailing becomes very inconvenient to a large number of passengers.

 

[Energy]

Why are you assuming it would be a Chiltern service, especially as I was proposing them not going north of Banbury!
Changing at Banbury en route is somewhat more convenient than going all the way to Reading and back!

You can also change at Bristol.

You were proposing them to not go north of Banbury? Strange considering you said Swindon to Birmingham and Birmingham is certainly north of Banbury...

 

[Aictos]

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

And? Watford Junction is within the M25 yet is served by Avanti West Coast and Caledonian Sleeper services on top of the more frequent London Northwestern and London Overground services but I don't see you calling for the Avanti West Coast and Caledonian Sleeper services to be dropped....

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.

Instantly increasing CO2 emissions by encouraging more car drivers onto the roads when we should be encouraging a modal switch to rail usage.

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.

Point 1, the Chiltern Mainline services between London and Birmingham are a success regardless if you like the fact or not.

Chiltern Mainline passenger growth during first year of operation

Chiltern Railways says it has been an “incredible first year” for its Mainline service between Birmingham and London. The operator was celebrating the service’s ‘first birthday’ this week with cake and croissants for passengers at Brimingham Moor Street. It said passenger numbers on its Birmingham to London services are up 45.8%, and said overall there had been a 33.6% increase in journeys between the West Midlands and London. It said the faster journey times, around 90 minutes, were thanks to the £250m infrastructure upgrade in phase one of Evergreen 3.

Rob Brighouse, managing director at Chiltern Railways said: “It’s been an incredible first year for our Birmingham to London Mainline service. Passengers are not only voting with their feet and switching to Mainline but they are also telling us what they like about our service. Free wi-fi, power points, comfortable seats and affordable fares are consistently mentioned. West Midlanders now have a flexible, fast and reliable travel option to London where they can work in comfort without breaking the bank.”

The company makes a big play of its ‘simple and flexible fares’ on Chiltern Mainline, offering a £95 return on any train, any day; a £50 return for all trains except those arriving in London before 10am Mondays to Fridays; and a £27.50 return with tighter peak-time restrictions. The TOC noted too that this year the parking facilities at Solihull have been extended while at Warwick Parkway, work is underway to increase the car parking capacity to over 900 spaces.

Chiltern Mainline passenger growth during first year of operation

www.railtechnologymagazine.com

So how can the Chiltern Birmingham services not be a success or a huge market when you have solid figures backing up Chiltern Railways?

Point 2, when HS2 is opened then saying Chiltern shouldn't be a priority is very short termism as the UK should use the opportunity given by HS2 to run more services on the classic network regardless of who the TOC is.

 

[si404]

You appear to have the ideology that through trains should remain whatever.

Not at all - I've shown willingness to change service if there's a case for dropping something.

If there aren’t better uses then carry on.

Indeed - the onus is on you to make the case for not only additional Birmingham-Oxford trains (which I have conceded throughout), but also for removing Birmingham-Wycombe trains entirely - because you are insisting that it needs to be both trains and apparently keeping a Wycombe train is ideological. You have to show that 4tph Birmingham to Oxford and 0tph Birmingham to Wycombe is a better use of the capacity between Banbury and Leamington than a 3-1 split, or todays 2-2 split.

No, rather you are so ideologically obsessed with reworking services, any regional services that exist now must be replaced with new ideas. That's absurd!

Let's have a look at the West Midlands & Chiltern Route Study's unconstrained 2043 timetable for between Banbury and Leamington (p48):
2tph s of Oxford - via Coventry fast
2tph Marylebone - Central Birmingham fast
1tph Marylebone - Stratford semi-fast

ie the only changes to the service pattern are that Stratford trains have doubled to become hourly and both XCs go via Coventry (personally, if I was doing this, I'd swap the Stratford and a Birmingham - still 2tph fast London - Leamington and Warwick, but Beaconsfield, Princes Risborough, etc get a better anchor destination at the north end and the tourists to Stratford get a faster service)

I've been much more open to radical ideas like swapping a Marylebone fast for an Oxford fast than Network Rail's crayons department - no doubt in part due to my not having the secret industry data that means that the Oxford leg of XC is the one that doesn't get more frequent trains proposed - Leicester fast service doubles (as does local), HS2 deals with the NW and NE increases, via Cheltenham has all sorts of service boosts proposed (including Birmingham-Swindon via Worcester) - but Banbury and Oxford keep the same frequency to Birmingham (Leamington gains improved local service). But somehow I'm ideologically wedded to keeping things as they are? Bonkers!

It would be a significant improvement for Swindon to be able to get directly to Oxford and Birmingham

Indeed it would. But by your logic re: Bucks-Birmingham, Leamington-London, etc: why can't Swindon people change at Cheltenham or Didcot? To quote someone:

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

 

[si404]

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.

When did they get Aylesbury-MKC? Didn't they lose it when it stopped being a London-Wycombe-MKC(-future extension to Northampton) service with the descoping of the scheme?

I'd also think a third train per hour could run to Marylebone to Oxford, more stopping in nature.

I'd agree. Oxford strikes me as a better down anchor for a second semi-fast Chiltern service than Banbury (likewise for the first, Birmingham rather than Stratford - which can have a fast train as the main market at that end of the line for fast London service post-HS2 would be Leamington)

 

[Meerkat]

You can also change at Bristol.

You were proposing them to not go north of Banbury? Strange considering you said Swindon to Birmingham and Birmingham is certainly north of Banbury...

The Swindon service wouldn’t be a Chiltern one.

So how can the Chiltern Birmingham services not be a success or a huge market when you have solid figures backing up Chiltern Railways?

I note they seem most proud of West Midlanders switching to them, which would suggest they could easily go back to the WCML.
It being popular still wouldn’t make it the strategically most useful use of capacity, not if there were better uses, the Chiltern passengers largely had options, and the capacity into Marylebone was better dedicated to suburban commuting needs. Start with an open mind, and a thorough appraisal of the options - dont just assume the status quo must continue.

Indeed it would. But by your logic re: Bucks-Birmingham, Leamington-London, etc: why can't Swindon people change at Cheltenham or Didcot? To quote someone:

That would need to be appraised, but your two options have easy connections between fast services. Swindon doesn’t have easy options.

 

[Energy]

The Swindon service wouldn’t be a Chiltern one.

You still said it would go to Birmingham in previous posts on this thead.

 

[Meerkat]

You still said it would go to Birmingham in previous posts on this thead.

Yes???? So?

 

[si404]

Swindon doesn’t have easy options.

Using current (well not current, but what's meant to be running) services

Swindon-Oxford: 4tph Swindon-Didcot, 2tph Didcot-Oxford. Pretty decent if that change works (currently, with only 2tph Swindon-Didcot, you have a 29m wait at Didcot Oxford-bound, and over 15m Swindon-bound. Each leg is only around 15 minutes!).

Swindon-Birmingham via Cheltenham: 1tph Swindon-Cheltenham (via Gloucester), 3tph Cheltenham-Birmingham. Not ideal, I agree.

EWR could be extended for Oxford-Swindon connectivity, as could a Moor Street-Oxford one. The Swindon-Birmingham via Cheltenham route is somewhat off-topic, but (like Bedford-Oxford-Swindon) is something that is part of the official crayons (unlike more Birmingham-Oxford service). There's options to provide these (decent-case) direct links that don't require breaking the Leamington-London and Bucks-Birmingham links.

 

[The Planner]

I cannot imagine Swindon to Birmingham being any quicker via Oxford, I doubt it would be at all. If Swindon to Birmingham needs improving (it has always been an odd journey to make easily) then it would probably be better off via better connections at Cheltenham without a Gloucester dog-leg. The old Oxford Bristol service never really worked.

 

[Aictos]

The Swindon service wouldn’t be a Chiltern one.

I note they seem most proud of West Midlanders switching to them, which would suggest they could easily go back to the WCML.
It being popular still wouldn’t make it the strategically most useful use of capacity, not if there were better uses, the Chiltern passengers largely had options, and the capacity into Marylebone was better dedicated to suburban commuting needs. Start with an open mind, and a thorough appraisal of the options - dont just assume the status quo must continue.

And? You said that the London to Birmingham market that Chiltern serves is in your own words "Not a huge market" Chiltern would obviously disagree with you and they have the facts to back it up, the fact that you don't like them is just proof that your ideas are daft and shouldn't even be given the time of day.

The WCML is already busy enough and as I kindly pointed out which you deliberately ignored was that Chiltern is not competing with Avanti on speed but rather passenger comfort.

There is nothing wrong with the current service being provided and if anyone from Swindon did want to go to Birmingham then they can change with improved connections elsewhere.

 

[Bevan Price]

I suspect that if Chiltern could get enough spare DMUs that are 100mph-capable, they might contemplate using them to replace loco-hauled stock.
I think that 170s would be preferred -- but - if they could get enough - at least 15 to 20 - might they be interested in 175s, 185s, or even the 180s ??

 

[Thomas31]

If it were down to me, I’d close all the stations between Marylebone and Denham, with the exception of Wembley Stadium and perhaps either South or West Ruislip, Chiltern’s London stations are very lightly used and plenty of alternative options are available...

 

[si404]

Chiltern’s London stations are very lightly used

Because they have terrible service (hourly or worse)!

and plenty of alternative options are available.

Sudbury Hill Harrow is an outerchange, sure (which could be a reason to keep it?), and Sudbury & Harrow Road would also be except there's zero point because there's very few trains there, but Northolt Park is some way from other stops.

Close Sudbury & Harrow Road, if you want, and perhaps reduce one of the Ruislips to a token service, but the other two or three are worth serving.

From Sudbury Hill Harrow to Marylebone is 19 minutes - the Piccadilly line would get you to Hammersmith in about that time. From South Ruislip, Marylebone is 22 minutes - the Central line gets you to Holland Park in that time.

For a lot of Central London, Chiltern is quicker (especially from Sudbury). The issue is the need to use timetables. If you serve it poorly, then the numbers will be poor, but if you do serve it reasonably, then you'll see a reasonable usage.

The Old Oak Common branch is going to be useful to get 'Chiltern Metro' at Wembley, Sudbury and Northolt.

 

[Energy]

I suspect that if Chiltern could get enough spare DMUs that are 100mph-capable, they might contemplate using them to replace loco-hauled stock.
I think that 170s would be preferred -- but - if they could get enough - at least 15 to 20 - might they be interested in 175s, 185s, or even the 180s ??

175s and 180s are both unreliable, the 180s are too small a fleet, the 175s could happen but the 185s are a better option although they are overpowered giving them bad fuel economy. If Chiltern got more 170s then a doubled up 3 car can replace a loco hauled set, are TfW planning to keep their 170 once the CAFs arrive?

 

[Bald Rick]

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

You couldn’t reduce the track access charges sufficiently to cover the cost of electrification. And because it would be revenue foregone to deliver a public asset, it would techically be a PFI deal and Treasury would say no.

 

[Meerkat]

There is nothing wrong with the current service being provided and if anyone from Swindon did want to go to Birmingham then they can change with improved connections elsewhere.

The current service is fine, but this thread is about the future, a future where there will be four London to Birmingham services.
Therefore we should make sure that Chiltern is the best use of the Banbury Leamington paths, the best use of Snow Hill suburban paths, and the best use of capacity into Marylebone.

 

[Aictos]

The current service is fine, but this thread is about the future, a future where there will be four London to Birmingham services.
Therefore we should make sure that Chiltern is the best use of the Banbury Leamington paths, the best use of Snow Hill suburban paths, and the best use of capacity into Marylebone.

Yet your proposals do nothing positive and will drive people back onto the roads increasing CO2 pollution in the meanwhile.

The best steps to take which would massively improve Chiltern Railways is not by turning back the clock to the 1980s with nothing north of Banbury which btw would utterly destroy the market for travel between Birmingham and London including stations in-between but by rather electrifying the Chiltern Mainline between London Marylebone and Birmingham Snow Hill via Solihull and to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough with the following being infill schemes: Oxford via Oxford Parkway and via Banbury on the OHL electrification system leaving the Aylesbury via Amersham to use DMUs.

The Chiltern Electrification could also work with both Great Western Electrification for Oxford to Didcot Parkway as a infill scheme, the existing West Coast for Leamington Spa to Coventry (potentially even extend to Nuneaton) as a infill scheme and also see further electrification in the West Midlands as add-on schemes to existing electrification.

 

[Energy]

Leamington Spa to Coventry (potentially even extend to Nuneaton)

Also double track Leamington Spa to Coventry if you are going to bother electrifying it, it is currently single track in most or all sections.

 

[cactustwirly]

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

It's still a good 25-30 miles from the centre of London.
It arguably deserves through services to Birmingham just like Milton Keynes.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If it were down to me, I’d close all the stations between Marylebone and Denham, with the exception of Wembley Stadium and perhaps either South or West Ruislip, Chiltern’s London stations are very lightly used and plenty of alternative options are available...

You'll have to keep West Ruislip open as that's where fast Up trains pass the stopping trains. Similarly, South Ruislip is where stopping trains are passed on the down. As a new service to Old Oak is not yet dead in the water, the two stations at Ruislip should be retained for the foreseeable future.

 

[Aictos]

Also double track Leamington Spa to Coventry if you are going to bother electrifying it, it is currently single track in most or all sections.

I would have thought any electrification would also deliver any needed infrastructure improvements including track and signalling.

With the potential of electrification, you could have up to 12 car EMUs running services that are faster, quieter and a lot more seats.

 

[Energy]

I would have thought any electrification would also deliver any needed infrastructure improvements including track and signalling.

Leamington to Coventry is planned to be doubled and electrified as part of electric spine although this work has been delayed indefinitely

 

[The Planner]

Leamington to Coventry is planned to be doubled and electrified as part of electric spine although this work has been delayed indefinitely

No, Electric spine is dead. Leamington to Coventry is only planned for partial re-doubling as it stands.