Chiltern timetable - what if it wasn't about Brum-London?

[adrock1976]

Please dont take it personally, i honestly didn't mean to offend you, just if you put timings in then i take it on what you said. What you said mathematically didnt work. We clearly have differing opinions, thats okay im sure theres no right answer. In fact I'm pretty sure if we looked just did some minor tweeks to an older timetable it would be better.

I like this, but your cheating now! You have extra tracks and I didn't! I'm going to have to go away and get nerdy now and plan something similar.

For a successful Taktplan, I believe that you design the desired timetable first in both directions, then compare it with the existing infrastructure to see if it fits. If it does not (for example due to trains meeting each other on single track sections, meaning the timetable would not work), you then have the necessary infrastructure interventions so as to make the timetable work. I'm sure @Bletchleyite would say something similar to what I am explaining.

Also, small scale local infrastructure interventions help improve local and regional connectivity which would help people to leave cars at home and use public transport.

 

[Ianno87]

For a successful Taktplan, I believe that you design the desired timetable first in both directions, then compare it with the existing infrastructure to see if it fits. If it does not (for example due to trains meeting each other on single track sections, meaning the timetable would not work), you then have the necessary infrastructure interventions so as to make the timetable work. I'm sure @Bletchleyite would say something similar to what I am explaining.

Also, small scale local infrastructure interventions help improve local and regional connectivity which would help people to leave cars at home and use public transport.

That's the Taktfahrplan approach pretty much.

But then you get into the realms of cost-benefit analysis where "Is doubling this single line worth it for the benefits it gives compared to a timetable that accounts for the single line, that could achieve 95% of the same things without spending a penny on infrastructure" (for example).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's the Taktfahrplan approach pretty much.

Indeed. It's quite different to the UK approach of "build some infrastructure then see what you can cram into it". Though it has been done in the UK - for example the Dovey Junction loop and platform extension was specifically built to allow an hourly timetable to operate to Aber, even though (I think) it doesn't quite yet.

There are two sides to that - it also avoids wasteful infrastructure being built - if you don't need to double-track a line for the service you want but a couple of loops will do, you build the loops, not just double the whole thing. The most notable example I've seen of this is the Lausanne Metro, a very significant part of which is single track with loops, same with the S-Bahn north of Geneva.

Anyway, back to Chiltern, I think the aim was more about the British approach of "what can we do with the existing infrastructure", albeit ideally reliably, though if interventions were justified I suppose they fit as well.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed. It's quite different to the UK approach of "build some infrastructure then see what you can cram into it". Though it has been done in the UK - for example the Dovey Junction loop and platform extension was specifically built to allow an hourly timetable to operate to Aber, even though (I think) it doesn't quite yet.

Not *quite* fair - early stage planning such as RUSs and Route Studies are based on "if these are the trains I want to run, what infrastructure do I need?", although it's never specific to a particular way of doing the timetable, to keep future choices open.

Proof House Jn remodelling in the late 00s/early 2000s would be a good example of building infrastructure to meet the timetable need.

Then there's the reality of what actually gets funded and built, and making the timetable work on that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Proof House Jn remodelling in the late 00s/early 2000s would be a good example of building infrastructure to meet the timetable need.

Arguably the whole of West Coast Route Modernisation was built to a timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Arguably the whole of West Coast Route Modernisation was built to a timetable.

I suppose parts of it were, e.g. the Tring turnback was built specifically to allow for Tring stoppers, and MKC platform 6 for allowing calls at MKC without holding other services up, as well as the switch from platform 1 to 2 as the turnback making terminating slow-line services more viable. And I guess 2A (pretty much disused at the moment) for EWR.

 

[Ianno87]

I suppose parts of it were, e.g. the Tring turnback was built specifically to allow for Tring stoppers, and MKC platform 6 for allowing calls at MKC without holding other services up, as well as the switch from platform 1 to 2 as the turnback making terminating slow-line services more viable. And I guess 2A (pretty much disused at the moment) for EWR.

And achieving a journey time of N minutes between Euston and X/Y/Z would almost certainly be a key requirement. Which then determined solutions like Rugby to achieve this.

 

[RT4038]

I suppose parts of it were, e.g. the Tring turnback was built specifically to allow for Tring stoppers, and MKC platform 6 for allowing calls at MKC without holding other services up, as well as the switch from platform 1 to 2 as the turnback making terminating slow-line services more viable. And I guess 2A (pretty much disused at the moment) for EWR.

With the Ledburn crossings, and the extra platforms at Rugby....

 

[Ianno87]

With the Ledburn crossings, and the extra platforms at Rugby....

Sorting Rugby was pretty fundamental both to journey time and pumping the required number of trains through.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suppose parts of it were, e.g. the Tring turnback was built specifically to allow for Tring stoppers, and MKC platform 6 for allowing calls at MKC without holding other services up, as well as the switch from platform 1 to 2 as the turnback making terminating slow-line services more viable. And I guess 2A (pretty much disused at the moment) for EWR.

And the Trent Valley four tracking was for a specific level of freight services, both Euston and Proof House were remodelled for specific service specifications, etc etc

 

[HSTEd]

This has probably been done to death.

But let's say you put the fastest accelerating units available onto the service, what sort of journey times are we looking at for an all shacks stopper?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This has probably been done to death.

But let's say you put the fastest accelerating units available onto the service, what sort of journey times are we looking at for an all shacks stopper?

I've looked at this before, and was surprised by what I found:

Euston-Tring, 31 3/4 miles, 43 minutes, 10 stops including both ends
Marylebone-Wycombe, 27 3/4 miles, 44 minutes, 9 stops including both ends (the 0617 is the most comparable train I could find, though it doesn't actually terminate there)

That's not an awful lot of difference when you consider that the Trings are operated mostly by 350s which are very quick off the mark, whereas the 165s are decidedly sluggish at the best of times - I had expected the comparison to be much more pronounced. Or are the Tring stoppers all timed for 319s even though only a few of them are actually worked by them? (I think a 319 would give a 165 a run for its sluggishness money).

 

[Ianno87]

I've looked at this before, and was surprised by what I found:

Euston-Tring, 31 3/4 miles, 43 minutes, 10 stops including both ends
Marylebone-Wycombe, 27 3/4 miles, 44 minutes, 9 stops including both ends (the 0617 is the most comparable train I could find, though it doesn't actually terminate there)

That's not an awful lot of difference when you consider that the Trings are operated mostly by 350s which are very quick off the mark, whereas the 165s are decidedly sluggish at the best of times - I had expected the comparison to be much more pronounced. Or are the Tring stoppers all timed for 319s even though only a few of them are actually worked by them? (I think a 319 would give a 165 a run for its sluggishness money).

I've a feeling the WCML Slow Line SRTs are little changed from Class 321 days. Plus dwell times will be a factor, with 350s requiring average 45 secomd dwells.

There'll also be an element of Chiltern timings needing to be a little more "agressive" to fit on the two track.

 

[The Planner]

I've a feeling the WCML Slow Line SRTs are little changed from Class 321 days. Plus dwell times will be a factor, with 350s requiring average 45 secomd dwells.

There'll also be an element of Chiltern timings needing to be a little more "agressive" to fit on the two track.

Pretty much spot on.

 

[adrock1976]

Was the section of the route between West Ruislip and Banbury ever quad track at all when built?

 

[RT4038]

Was the section of the route between West Ruislip and Banbury ever quad track at all when built?

Only passing loops at various stations.(Bicester N, Princes Risborough, H.Wycombe, Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross I think)

 

[A0]

Only passing loops at various stations.(Bicester N, Princes Risborough, H.Wycombe, Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross I think)

Denham also had passing loops.

The BTF film 'Lets go to Birmingham' from 1962 shows the route quite nicely - and it's on Youtube

 

[HSTEd]

Forgive my ignorance, how much of the line is actually quad track?

Isn't it still overwhelmingly a two track railway?

 

[JonathanH]

Forgive my ignorance, how much of the line is actually quad track?

Isn't it still overwhelmingly a two track railway?

None of it. There is a facility for passing a slower train northbound through South Ruislip and southbound at Princes Risborough and West Ruislip and then a few other places - High Wycombe southbound and Bicester North northbound where you can do wrong line passes. In theory the up loops at West Ruislip and Princes Risborough can be used northbound as well.

 

[cle]

Denham also had passing loops.

The BTF film 'Lets go to Birmingham' from 1962 shows the route quite nicely - and it's on Youtube

Add Wembley Stadium to the list too. Very clearly visible still - even track! Not sure this one would be super useful but seemingly an easy one to reinstate?

 

[Ianno87]

Add Wembley Stadium to the list too. Very clearly visible still - even track! Not sure this one would be super useful but seemingly an easy one to reinstate?

View attachment 90236

Part of the former formation just to the west of the platforms is taken up by the reversing siding.
.

 

[HSTEd]

Really if we wanted a simple timetable it would be better to have long continuous sections of quad track.

 

[adrock1976]

Really if we wanted a simple timetable it would be better to have long continuous sections of quad track.

I am leaning towards that as I am trying to design a Chiltern Taktplan for post HS2.

My attempts so far is that even with Northolt Park - West Ruislip quad track and the closure of Sudbury & Harrow Road and South Ruislip stations, I can only fit in every 15 minutes Marylebone - Gerrards Cross (all stations except the two Denhams, where it would alternate between them every 30 minutes each), plus the 2 of each Marylebone - Oxford and Birmingham.

I cannot fit in a 30 let alone 15 minute service Old Oak Common - High Wycombe.

Also, as a starting point, I have left the xx27 and xx57 Marylebone - Aylesbury via Harrow-on-the-Hill as they are due to sharing track with London Underground.

 

[A0]

Add Wembley Stadium to the list too. Very clearly visible still - even track! Not sure this one would be super useful but seemingly an easy one to reinstate?

View attachment 90236

Probably more useful southbound than northbound.

After all, you'd timetable a train which was stopping at Wembley to leave after a non stop from Marylebone, but coming the other way a stopper from Gerrards X or Wycombe could be pathed out the way of a fast from further afield.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2021 ==

Really if we wanted a simple timetable it would be better to have long continuous sections of quad track.

Which since it would cost billions, won't be happening any time soon.

 

[HSTEd]

So what

Which since it would cost billions, won't be happening any time soon.

Indeed.
It's a pity there is not likely to be any capacity out of Paddington over the NNML post HS2 (assuming it is reinstated). That would be a section of defacto quad track.

 

[cle]

Electrification would seem logical for many reasons, but not least that nippy new EMUs making stops could be a lot swifter pathed between/behind the fasts. I wonder if more could be squeezed that way. It must have been modelled. The Tring example is not an exact science.

But yes, the sections of quad / dynamic passing are the key. Full quadding from Northolt to Denham would need a rebuild of the latter, but might make the biggest dent, especially if OOC comes into the scene. Beaconsfield also, but that would probably be a dwell wait.

Princes Risborough has space to be a fuller passing place / dynamic and both ways.

 

[adrock1976]

Electrification would seem logical for many reasons, but not least that nippy new EMUs making stops could be a lot swifter pathed between/behind the fasts. I wonder if more could be squeezed that way. It must have been modelled. The Tring example is not an exact science.

But yes, the sections of quad / dynamic passing are the key. Full quadding from Northolt to Denham would need a rebuild of the latter, but might make the biggest dent, especially if OOC comes into the scene. Beaconsfield also, but that would probably be a dwell wait.

Princes Risborough has space to be a fuller passing place / dynamic and both ways.

Regarding quad tracking to Denham, is there still space beyond West Ruislip today as the original plan of London Underground's Central Line was to run to Denham?

 

[cle]

Yes there is space to Denham. The issue is Denham's station rebuild/layout and car park. Not unfixable, but a bit pricey - check this out:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[30907]

Yes there is space to Denham. The issue is Denham's station rebuild/layout and car park. Not unfixable, but a bit pricey.

Reinstating the old layout at S/W Ruislip should allow a decent overtaking opportunity, though it would require closing the widened platforms to do it.
Going through to Denham would be even better, and you could use the new down platform while rebuilding the old one. (My Googlemaps doesn't show the new car park, but I presume it is on the up side?)

 

[The Planner]

Opens up the question of are you building infrastructure for a timetable, or constraining a timetable becuase there used to be loops or 4 tracking there so we must rebuild it with rose tinted glasses.