Extending Crossrail up the Chiltern Mainline

[MidlandMainlie]

When Old Oak Common station station opens to provide interchange between HS2 and Crossrail I understand that some of the Crossrail services that terminate at Paddington will be extended to OOC. Would it be feasible instead of terminating these extended services at OOC to send some of them up the New North Mainline from OOC to South Ruislip and then up the Chiltern Mainline? This would run parallel the Central line as far as West Ruislip with extra platforms at Greenford for interchange. The extended Crossrail would provide a quicker route to central London and an an interchange for Heathrow services at OOC.

If Crossrail was extended how far up the Chiltern Mainline should it go? I think Princes Rainbrough would be the best place to terminate the extended services as there looks to be room for extra platforms to terminate services.

Acton–Northolt line - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Crossrail service parrern from London Reconnections

 

[JonathanH]

When Old Oak Common station station opens to provide interchange between HS2 and Crossrail I understand that some of the Crossrail services that terminate at Paddington will be extended to OOC. Would it be feasible instead of terminating these extended services at OOC to send some of them up the New North Mainline from OOC to South Ruislip and then up the Chiltern Mainline? This would run parallel the Central line as far as West Ruislip with extra platforms at Greenford for interchange. The extended Crossrail would provide a quicker route to central London and an an interchange for Heathrow services at OOC.

If Crossrail was extended how far up the Chiltern Mainline should it go? I think Princes Rainbrough would be the best place to terminate the extended services as there looks to be room for extra platforms to terminate services.

Acton–Northolt line - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Crossrail service parrern from London Reconnections

The 1991 plans would of course have seen Crossrail running to Aylesbury taking over the Metropolitan line.

The seems little reason to send the trains up the Chiltern main line and indeed not enough line capacity on what is essentially a two-track railway.

TfL is the main sponsor of Crossrail. It isn't really in TfL's interests to extend miles up the Chiltern line. One simple option is to take over the Central Line from North Acton to West Ruislip and terminate there with all Central Line trains running to Ealing Broadway. Interchange with Chiltern services could be made at West Ruislip.

Alternatively, and I think closer to what may happen, Crossrail could end at Old Oak Common and Chiltern could run trains into an interchange station. Is it really worth running 9-car trains set up for mass transit into what are essentially places of low population density?

 

[A0]

The 1991 plans would of course have seen Crossrail running to Aylesbury taking over the Metropolitan line.

The seems little reason to send the trains up the Chiltern main line and indeed not enough line capacity on what is essentially a two-track railway.

TfL is the main sponsor of Crossrail. It isn't really in TfL's interests to extend miles up the Chiltern line. One simple option is to take over the Central Line from North Acton to West Ruislip and terminate there with all Central Line trains running to Ealing Broadway. Interchange with Chiltern services could be made at West Ruislip.

Alternatively, and I think closer to what may happen, Crossrail could end at Old Oak Common and Chiltern could run trains into an interchange station. Is it really worth running 9-car trains set up for mass transit into what are essentially places of low population density?

"It isn't really in TfL's interests to extend miles up the Chiltern line. "

Yet TFL wants a land grab of the GN inner suburban services which reach a good 20 miles beyond the London boundary.

I happen to agree with you, it's the wrong thing to pair Chiltern to Crossrail at OOC, but TFL can be quite capricious and land grabs out of London seems to keep tempting them.

 

[JonathanH]

Yet TFL wants a land grab of the GN inner suburban services which reach a good 20 miles beyond the London boundary.

Do they?

Anyway, Hadley Wood to Welwyn Garden City and Crews Hill to Hertford North are just under 10 miles and there is plenty of traffic inside London to Enfield and Barnet. I note that the trains go to GN inner services go on another ten miles to Stevenage but they are hardly going to split the service at Hertford North and I imagine that stretch isn't exactly remunerative.

The flows from Hertford and Welwyn are possibly more than those from Denham. Gerrards Cross is the first natural end point, High Wycombe the next but I don't really see it.

 

[AlbertBeale]

One simple option is to take over the Central Line from North Acton to West Ruislip and terminate there with all Central Line trains running to Ealing Broadway. Interchange with Chiltern services could be made at West Ruislip.

Good luck with lengthening the Central Line platforms from North Acton onwards to take Crossrail trains!

 

[si404]

A key point of the Network Rail OOC Chiltern platforms is to create space at Marylebone for more metro services into Marylebone. It does this by diverting the mid-distance trains (Aylesbury/MK and Banbury/Stratford) freeing up to paths south of South Ruislip. It also (because of overtaking and the existence of via Amersham services) can, with some small infrastructure interventions along the way, enable a couple of additional services from OOC to Wycombe/Gerrards X.

If you change the proposal it into an Elizabeth line branch, you might get 2tph to Wycombe and 2tph to Gerrards Cross, but would need to stop the semi-fast services between Marylebone and the South Midlands at Wembley, Sudbury and Northolt Park because you've diverted the metro services away from Marylebone.

I don't see anything wrong with TfL operating to Wycombe (Chesham distance from London) or even Aylesbury via Amersham (Reading distance) but beyond that would be too far! As such, what would be a good idea (albeit expensive for just 4tph) of an Elizabeth line branch is mucked up by the bigger picture: Banbury and Bicester needs as well as Beaconsfield, Warwick and Wembley as well as Wycombe.

One simple option is to take over the Central Line from North Acton to West Ruislip and terminate there with all Central Line trains running to Ealing Broadway.

While access between North Acton and OOC is a missing link, I'm not sure what the point of this would be - there's no pressing demand for more capacity on the Ruislip branch, and the Ealing branch is going to be massively relieved, so even if it was there's spare capacity on the Central line as is.

OOC will have the traffic of a London terminal boarding the Elizabeth line there. Having the terminating trains sit there empty is not a bad thing - especially as the trains coming in from the West will be rammed at bad things. The priority for extension of services beyond OOC ought to be Maidenhead (I know TfL have their heart set on more to Heathrow, which has a strong case - well more empty trains at Hayes, Southall, etc has a strong case, but Slough could do with more too!)

 

[adamedwards]

There was a serious plan at one stage to link Crossrail to the WCML at Willesden and take over the stopping trains terminating at Tring. This would then have taken trains out of Euston to enable platforms to be converted for HS2 and to ensure a lack of congestion during HS2 construction.

 

[adamedwards]

As reported by the BBC in 2014:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28680186

 

[The Planner]

There was a serious plan at one stage to link Crossrail to the WCML at Willesden and take over the stopping trains terminating at Tring. This would then have taken trains out of Euston to enable platforms to be converted for HS2 and to ensure a lack of congestion during HS2 construction.

That died quite early on as it wasnt required for HS2 construction and the fact Tfl werent partial to pay for it, let alone messing the slow lines up on the WCML.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

As reported by the BBC in 2014:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28680186

https://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/crossrail-tracks-plans-are-shelved-849530#gsc.tab=0 sadly abandoned in 2016.

Crossrail off the tracks as plans are shelved
Plans to link to Tring to a major cross-country rail network have been shelved by the government.

 

[si404]

There was a serious plan at one stage to link Crossrail to the WCML at Willesden and take over the stopping trains terminating at Tring. This would then have taken trains out of Euston to enable platforms to be converted for HS2 and to ensure a lack of congestion during HS2 construction.

A potential second western branch has been fluid throughout the years:

• In the '90s, with it as a BR/NSE/NR scheme, the plan was for a branch to Aylesbury/Chesham - it removed that awkwardness off both Marylebone (which was unloved at that time - I wouldn't have been surprised if removing those services was in part out of the desire from some people to close it) and the Met (TfL wasn't a thing then, but the existence of different stopping patterns and going so far outside London wound idealists up back then as well). The difficulty/expense of getting from Paddington to Wembley was a sticking point.
• In the '00s, TfL, who were now calling the shorts, came up with Kingston via the NLL and Richmond. This befitted their desire to serve London better with it (with only Wembley and Harrow stops* inside Greater London, the Aylesbury/Chesham branch didn't do much for them). Sadly junction stuff at Richmond killed the scheme, and Hounslow BC's sensible alternative proposal to run trains to Hounslow instead to avoid that Richmond issue fell on deaf ears.
• In the '10s, Network Rail/DfT were rekindling an interest in the scheme as it was happening (under TfL's leadership). They proposed Tring for the reasons you state, and TfL were open to it, but pretty indifferent: similar to Aylesbury/Chesham there would only be Wembley and Harrow stops inside Greater London, and there was the same question of getting between Paddington and Wembley. The costs were more originally thought, which made the scheme more marginal and then Euston was descoped to save money on HS2, meaning a less disruptive rebuild and so less HS2-construction related benefits. The case for Tring - which was based on a low cost and helping Euston with HS2 (Crossrail 2 was full steam ahead by that point, so the need to remove passengers from Euston long term was less, as well as the construction relief not being needed anymore) - had gone, and the scheme was dropped.

*and maybe Northwood, replacing Moor Park on the fasts.

 

[mr_jrt]

Personally, I think Crossrail taking over the service to High Wycombe is a no brainer. You would need some additional infrastructure (to the point of effectively 4-tracking South Ruislip to High Wycombe), but getting that section wired and the platforms lengthened without having to deal with the sticky problem of land availability at Marylebone would be absolutely priceless.

The metro stations between South Ruislip and Marylebone are largely worthless anyway as there are faster options to get to central London, and without any interchanges (i.e. at Neasden or West Hampstead), then Marylebone is the only place you can get to. Which is largely why they're so poorly used, thus the solution there is probably to close them. Failing that, if you absolutely felt they were essential, then your best bet is probably a branch of the Jubilee from Neasden and restoring as much 4 tracking as you can, and diverting the excess capacity from the Wembley Park terminators and the Stanmore branch to serve it.

But I digress.

The NNML route to High Wycombe (or even a Reading equivalent beyond) has a huge potential for growth, but it can't be set free due to the constraints at Marylebone. You can't get Crossrail-length electric servcies to High Wycombe because Marylebone just doesn't have the platforms, even if you hand waved getting it wired up somehow, so serving it from Crossrail makes a lot of sense.

 

[London Trains]

I'd potentially equally split the 24tph at OOC having 12tph run towards Heathrow/Reading and 12tph towards High Wycombe/West Ruislip.

On the NNML the services would replace the Central Line, with stops at:

Park Royal (between Picc Line Park Royal and the current Hangar Lane)
Perivale
Greenford
Northolt
South Ruislip
Ruislip Gardens
West Ruislip

6tph would terminate at West Ruislip, and 6tph would skip Perivale and Ruislip Gardens, and continue to High Wycombe, calling at:

Denham
Denham Golf Club (2tph)
Gerrards Cross
Seer Green (2tph)
Beaconsfield
Loudwater (2tph)
High Wycombe

Trains would only call at one of the three stations only served by 2tph.

The Chiltern Mainline would be 4 tracked, and all stations other than Beaconsfield and High Wycombe would not be served by Chiltern.

 

[si404]

The metro stations between South Ruislip and Marylebone are largely worthless anyway as there are faster options to get to central London

What are these faster options? At best they are about the same, though obviously it depends on where you want in Central London. Kings Cross, or Waterloo, or somewhere similar that's got OK access to Marylebone, but less so from the Central line, and it'll win pretty easily.

South Ruislip is 21 minutes from Marylebone, which gives you 11 minutes to get to Oxford Circus (which is only 4 minutes on the Bakerloo) to equal the Central line's time for the direct journey. And that's a route with a direct London tube route right at hand - it's a tight run thing between a fairly direct tube line and the Chiltern-and-change option. The other Chiltern stations don't have that luxury of easy and quick tube options, and I chose somewhere on South Ruislip's tube line rather than demanded a change.

Sudbury Hill to Piccadilly Circus is pretty much identical timings via Marylebone or Piccadilly line - and again, I picked a no-change tube journey just to make the tube do better.

Northolt Park would involve a walk or bus. Wembley Stadium again involves a walk to Wembley Park/Central.

Which is largely why they're so poorly used, thus the solution there is probably to close them.

I'd have thought that was the poor hourly service (2tph at Wembley Stadium)!

 

[London Trains]

Northolt Park would involve a walk or bus.

Anyone using Northolt Park will likely be within a 5 min walk from either Northolt (if they live south of the station) or South Harrow (if they live north of the station). Only the people who basically live next to the station will have about a 10 minute walk to either station. A sub 10 minute walk for 99% of passengers is fine, so I would close the station.

 

[daodao]

Extending Cross-Rail up the former GW Birmingham main line as far as High Wycombe would facilitate better access to central London. It could be combined with 4th rail electrification between Aylesbury and Amersham and diverting services on this line to Baker Street, and diverting fast services running beyond High Wycombe to terminate at Paddington. The line from South Ruislip to Marylebone and Marylebone itself could be closed, as per the 1983 plan. The Aylesbury to Baker Street, and Cross-Rail to High Wycombe services would be run by TfL. They would be analogous to the RER services in Paris.

 

[The Planner]

Extending Cross-Rail up the former GW Birmingham main line as far as High Wycombe would facilitate better access to central London. It could be combined with 4th rail electrification between Aylesbury and Amersham and diverting services on this line to Baker Street, and diverting fast services running beyond High Wycombe to terminate at Paddington. The line from South Ruislip to Marylebone and Marylebone itself could be closed, as per the 1983 plan. The Aylesbury to Baker Street, and Cross-Rail to High Wycombe services would be run by TfL. They would be analogous to the RER services in Paris.

Im not sure where to begin with that one...

 

[stuu]

Anyone using Northolt Park will likely be within a 5 min walk from either Northolt (if they live south of the station) or South Harrow (if they live north of the station). Only the people who basically live next to the station will have about a 10 minute walk to either station. A sub 10 minute walk for 99% of passengers is fine, so I would close the station.

Google tells me it is 19m from Northolt Park to Northolt, and 15m to South Harrow, so I'm not convinced 99% of passengers would have a sub 10 minute walk. The Central line might be a reasonable alternative but the Picc is painfully slow compared to a 20 minute journey to Marylebone

 

[si404]

Google tells me it is 19m from Northolt Park to Northolt, and 15m to South Harrow, so I'm not convinced 99% of passengers would have a sub 10 minute walk. The Central line might be a reasonable alternative but the Picc is painfully slow compared to a 20 minute journey to Marylebone

I got 17 minutes walk to Northolt station and 17 minutes train journey to Marylebone, but your numbers are probably more accurate (I think the rail was an average brought down by slightly faster peak trains that skip stops, and I have my google maps walk speed set quite fast).

I thought the symmetry of the numbers quite illustrative of how absurd this "close Northolt Park" "there's faster routes" notion is - people living next to the station can walk to Northolt and board a train there - or, in that same amount of time to get on the train at Northolt, be alighting at Marylebone having travelled there!

South Harrow is possibly the place in zone 5 with the slowest journey to zone 1 (and that zone 1 station is Earls' Court - hardly central!) - if walking to another station is an option, this is one where people walk elsewhere to get to Central London, so it doesn't matter how close or not it is to Northwick Park.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Google tells me it is 19m from Northolt Park to Northolt, and 15m to South Harrow, so I'm not convinced 99% of passengers would have a sub 10 minute walk. The Central line might be a reasonable alternative but the Picc is painfully slow compared to a 20 minute journey to Marylebone

Indeed [ignoring the dreadful Google], I know from my own local connections with the area that South Harrow and Northolt are each much more than a 10-minute walk from Northolt Park; and some of Northolt Park's catchment area is even further from either of the others than Northolt Park itself is. The reason that there are so few users of Northolt Park station is precisely because it has hardly any trains stopping there! And Marylebone serves different parts of central London than the Picc and Central lines do.

There have been quite a few times over the years when I'd have used the Northolt Park connection to or from London if it was a frequent service.

 

[London Trains]

South Harrow is possibly the place in zone 5 with the slowest journey to zone 1 (and that zone 1 station is Earls' Court - hardly central!) - if walking to another station is an option, this is one where people walk elsewhere to get to Central London, so it doesn't matter how close or not it is to Northwick Park.

What's really needed is a good interchange between the Piccadilly line and the Central Line/Crossrail/whatever it is in the future at Park Royal, so passengers can simply change there and arrive in London much earlier.

 

[WideRanger]

Sending some trains up to Northolt, and then with a bit of new track to RAF Northolt. Which is sometimes talked about for conversion to a proper airport (albeit for smallish planes).

 

[corfield]

The plans to send 4tph Chiltern to OOC, these terminate there I assume?

What are the pro/cons of having them terminate vs running some of the Crossrail trains to the Chiltern destinations (GX, High Wycombe). Granted not electrified yet but that could come, also Chiltern platform lengths but AIUI Crossrail already has SDO on some of the Eastern stations?

Are the termination plans open to changing easily in the future post Chiltern electrifciation/lengthening and thus switch ti running through - which must offer a much better service?

 

[si404]

What are the pro/cons of having them terminate vs running some of the Crossrail trains to the Chiltern destinations (GX, High Wycombe).

Pros of Crossrail branch vs NR's planned OOC branch of Chiltern:

• direct frequent (though still, at absolute best, 6tph - more likely to be 4tph) service through Central London from Wycombe, Beaconsfield, Seer Green, Gerrards Cross, Denham and Ruislip rather than a half-and-half service to Marylebone and OOC
• slightly longer trains than planned as NR's full scheme (10-car equivalent vs 9-car)

Cons of Crossrail branch vs NR's planned OOC branch of Chiltern:

• far more expensive intervention at Old Oak Common to create flying/burrowing junction.
• mucks up Elizabeth line's simple service pattern and shared track creates risk of performance pollution
• little relief of Marylebone of trains unless you close stations between Marylebone and South Ruislip, and even then, very little relief due to shared track across (at the very least) the lengthy Misbourne Valley viaduct.
• no chance of proper Chiltern Metro even if you keep those stations open (and so they remain wasted potential).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The plans to send 4tph Chiltern to OOC, these terminate there I assume?

What are the pro/cons of having them terminate vs running some of the Crossrail trains to the Chiltern destinations (GX, High Wycombe). Granted not electrified yet but that could come, also Chiltern platform lengths but AIUI Crossrail already has SDO on some of the Eastern stations?

Are the termination plans open to changing easily in the future post Chiltern electrifciation/lengthening and thus switch ti running through - which must offer a much better service?

Yes they are.

It allows more metro services out of Marylebone by relocating Mid-distance services (Banbury, Stratford-upon Avon, Aylesbury and MKC). most people who use Marylebone according to Network rail (can't remember where i read this) make onwards connections hence why Old Oak is a good option for Chiltern long term.

 

[mr_jrt]

Cons of Crossrail branch vs NR's planned OOC branch of Chiltern:

• far more expensive intervention at Old Oak Common to create flying/burrowing junction.
• mucks up Elizabeth line's simple service pattern and shared track creates risk of performance pollution
• little relief of Marylebone of trains unless you close stations between Marylebone and South Ruislip, and even then, very little relief due to shared track across (at the very least) the lengthy Misbourne Valley viaduct.
• no chance of proper Chiltern Metro even if you keep those stations open (and so they remain wasted potential).

• Well, yes a flyover is more expensive, but much, much more useful.
• Hows does extending services planned to turn back at OOC muck up a "simple service pattern"? ...and yes, it does increase the risk of performance pollution, but then Crossrail already shares the GWML and GEML slows with freight. There is scope for segregation along the Chiltern route to mitigate this.
• Somehow the ECML manages to flight services over the Welwyn Viaduct and maintain capacity. Suggesting a viaduct miles away would not offer any relief to the terminus is clutching at straws somewhat. I suspect the Chiltern line could fit more paths in with a bit of flighting unless second viaduct was absolutely required. It would be be far less controversial than Welwyn, too.
• Plenty of chance of a proper Chiltern metro, that's exactly what Crossrail would be. Those stations are almost certainly not needed, and if you really, really feel the need for Wembley Stadium to have another station, build a Jubilee branch from Neasden to soak up that spare capacity.

Whilst removing services from South Ruislip to Marylebone might not seem as useful without full segregation to enable more mainline services, it does however free up paths from Neasden to Marylebone which can then be used for more services via Amersham, enabling Chiltern to take over the service west of Ricky, potentially routing their future Milton Keynes services that way, freeing up paths south of Princes Risborough, which could then be used for more Crossrail services.

 

[daodao]

Old Oak Common is the middle of nowhere. It is a stupid place to terminate trains, from either east or west, even if in many years hence it becomes an interchange station for HS2". In particular, the idea that the main line Chiltern trains would terminate here and not run through to a central London station is mad. It would be best to link the Cross-Rail services and local services to High Wycombe, and allow the longer distance Chiltern line trains to run through to a central London terminus, either Marylebone (as at present) or Paddington (as I have proposed).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Old Oak Common is the middle of nowhere. It is a stupid place to terminate trains, from either east or west, even if in many years hence it becomes an interchange station for HS2". In particular, the idea that the main line Chiltern trains would terminate here and not run through to a central London station is mad. It would be best to link the Cross-Rail services and local services to High Wycombe, and allow the longer distance Chiltern line trains to run through to a central London terminus, either Marylebone (as at present) or Paddington (as I have proposed).

Is it? According to Network rail study most people who use Marylebone change on to other destinations into London so Old Oak Common is a good place to terminate as it provides alot of onwards connection. https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Midlands-and-Chilterns-Route-Study-Final.pdf page 80

 

[mmh]

Do they?

I suspect the main driver for these TFL expansion suggestions is a combination of London based journalists who can't understand how one can live somewhere not on a tube map, and conversely out of London residents with no experience of how mediocre a TFL service can be who also hope that being added to a tube map will drive their house price up.

 

[CW2]

It might be useful to remember that the reason for extending the Crossrail services to start back from Old Oak Common is specifically to cope with the large volume of interchanging passengers off HS2. Therefore filling the Crssrail trains with passengers from Aylesbury / Northolt Aerodrome / wherever is entirely counterproductive.