How could London Marylebone capacity be increased?

[BrianW]

Q1. How could this be increased?
Q2. Or more fully utilised?
Q3. And would it be worth it?
I am conscious that a station that might have closed in the 1960s had space (ex sidings) sold off, later had extra platforms created, and still has a platformless siding under the roof ... is still diesel, and all with a double track approach in tunnel.
I recall an image of lines below Lords- was there a further tunnel planned or built to the west of the existing?
I know there have been many speculations and comments on turning services over to TfL, and 3rd or 4th railing.
'Opportunities' at Finchley Rd and West Hampstead have also been well ventilated, and shot down.
Covid has brought reduced travel and reduced services, which may or may not return or return to growth, so a lot of uncertainties.
I felt that Justine Greening when she was 'in charge' of Transport in government, had envisaged Birmingham to Paddington or Marylebone as what morphed into HS2.
What do you think- and I shall be pleased to see no 'no-brainer' or 'you're mad' kind of comments.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

You’ll struggle to increase capacity too much, the two track section from Finchley Road out to Neasden is mostly on viaducts and has housing built right up to the boundary on one side and the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines on the other. Just the sheer cost of doing anything with that is nuts and it needs to be done to seriously change what the station can deal with.
The things you can do are improve the fleet, Marylebone is still served by 2 car DMUs, electrify the line and put four aspect signalling in at least as far as High Wycombe. I can’t see any of this happening any time soon, the existing signals are still fairly new even if they aren’t exactly capable of delivering the kind of timetable Marylebone could handle, but shorter sections and faster/longer trains would certainly help deliver a more acceptable suburban service and keep the Oxford and Birmingham express trains running. (But it won’t happen)

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Well, in theory, they’re going to take two trains an hour out and send them to Old Oak. Potentially you could make the Amersham line stuff as long as possible and take two paths out again at peak; if the Met line could take the strain with some consequential fast service?

 

[stuu]

Q1. How could this be increased?
Q2. Or more fully utilised?
Q3. And would it be worth it?
I am conscious that a station that might have closed in the 1960s had space (ex sidings) sold off, later had extra platforms created, and still has a platformless siding under the roof ... is still diesel, and all with a double track approach in tunnel.
I recall an image of lines below Lords- was there a further tunnel planned or built to the west of the existing?
I know there have been many speculations and comments on turning services over to TfL, and 3rd or 4th railing.
'Opportunities' at Finchley Rd and West Hampstead have also been well ventilated, and shot down.
Covid has brought reduced travel and reduced services, which may or may not return or return to growth, so a lot of uncertainties.
I felt that Justine Greening when she was 'in charge' of Transport in government, had envisaged Birmingham to Paddington or Marylebone as what morphed into HS2.
What do you think- and I shall be pleased to see no 'no-brainer' or 'you're mad' kind of comm

1. with a big pile of money
2. it is pretty well utilised now
3. Almost certainly not, given HS2 will be running before any increase is likely to happen

Did Justine Greening achieve anything lasting?

 

[Bald Rick]

In order:
1) run the existing infrastructure at max capacity - this would mean compromises on service patterns
2) Higher capacity trains
3) Longer trains
4) resignalling for higher capacity; this might reduce line speeeds south of Neasden.
5) ATO

 

[Energy]

3) Longer trains

Running longer than 2 car DMUs may actually help without needing major infrastructure upgrades as Chiltern already has pretty long platforms. Who knew that 2 or 3 car trains are not long enough for a mainline... to be fair they do get doubled up to longer trains, its common for those services to get short formed back to 2/3 cars.

 

[Bald Rick]

Running longer than 2 car DMUs may actually help without needing major infrastructure upgrades as Chiltern already has pretty long platforms. Who knew that 2 or 3 car trains are not long enough for a mainline... to be fair they do get doubled up to longer trains, its common for those services to get short formed back to 2/3 cars.

Agreed. I should have said:

3) longer trains than currently permitted by the existing infrastructure.

 

[Energy]

Agreed. I should have said:

3) longer trains than currently permitted by the existing infrastructure.

How long do you want? I believe Chiltern can run up to 9*23m due to DOO limitations with their union. Not sure how regular they run that long though, 7 cars are common.

 

[A0]

How long do you want? I believe Chiltern can run up to 9*23m due to DOO limitations with their union. Not sure how regular they run that long though, 7 cars are common.

The thing is a 7 or 9 car set run using a mix of 2/3 car units doesn't provide the maximum capacity owing the cabs etc. So when the Chiltern fleet comes up for renewal, that's something that needs to be looked at. I suspect that's part of what @Bald Rick is alluding to.

To be fair the Turbos are nudging 30 years old now - when they were introduced they provided more than enough capacity on the Chiltern lines. The growth on those lines is a tribute to some concerted effort by Network South East and subsequently Chiltern Railways. It's easy to forget BR was all for closing the route into Marylebone in the mid 80s, diverting the Wycombe services into Paddington and leaving Amersham - Aylesbury as a stub.

 

[Energy]

The thing is a 7 or 9 car set run using a mix of 2/3 car units doesn't provide the maximum capacity owing the cabs etc. So when the Chiltern fleet comes up for renewal, that's something that needs to be looked at. I suspect that's part of what @Bald Rick is alluding to.

Agreed, if/when Chiltern gets electrified it would make sense to get a fleet of 7/9 car EMUs like the 345s but with a doors at thirds layout.

 

[A0]

You’ll struggle to increase capacity too much, the two track section from Finchley Road out to Neasden is mostly on viaducts and has housing built right up to the boundary on one side and the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines on the other. Just the sheer cost of doing anything with that is nuts and it needs to be done to seriously change what the station can deal with.

The irony here is the GC was largely built to be expandable as demand increased. So space was left to build alongside the running lines for most of the route. Not for the first time Edward Watkin was right, just not in his lifetime.

In an ideal world you'd get 4 track to Neasden where the routes split. And revisit the Met / Chiltern arrangements north of Harrow, but none of that is quick or easy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, if/when Chiltern gets electrified it would make sense to get a fleet of 7/9 car EMUs like the 345s but with a doors at thirds layout.

What would probably make sense would be to have either 3x24m or 4x20m gangwayed EMUs[1][2] and run them singly, in pairs or in threes. That works for most of the South East commuter area and it would work for Chiltern too, because much as people seem to think they're special they are just another commuter operation that happens to have some cheap through fares to Birmingham. Yes, doors at thirds, and probably a 2+2 "Mainline" style interior on them all; no real reason to have two subfleets.

[1] OHLE and 4-rail, so they can run on the whole thing including the Met.
[2] Gangways may pose a DOO mirror sighting issue, but new stock would likely use cameras on each vehicle instead so that issue goes.

 

[A0]

Agreed, if/when Chiltern gets electrified it would make sense to get a fleet of 7/9 car EMUs like the 345s but with a doors at thirds layout.

The first question is *how* Chiltern's going to get electrified. Relatively speaking the Wycombe route is fairly easy in as much as it's not shared. The bigger question is what about Harrow - Amersham ? Yes you could provide dual-voltage EMUs with changeovers in the vicinity of Harrow and Amersham (presumably the change would need to happen within the NR estate not TFL) but is the TFL power supply up to handling Chiltern running EMUs over that stretch ?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

What would probably make sense would be to have either 3x24m or 4x20m gangwayed EMUs[1][2] and run them singly, in pairs or in threes. That works for most of the South East commuter area and it would work for Chiltern too, because much as people seem to think they're special they are just another commuter operation that happens to have some cheap through fares to Birmingham. Yes, doors at thirds, and probably a 2+2 "Mainline" style interior on them all; no real reason to have two subfleets.

[1] OHLE and 4-rail, so they can run on the whole thing including the Met.
[2] Gangways may pose a DOO mirror sighting issue, but new stock would likely use cameras on each vehicle instead so that issue goes.

375/6s. When they came out, what a marvellous interior they had. Perfect sort of thing for Chiltern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

375/6s. When they came out, what a marvellous interior they had. Perfect sort of thing for Chiltern.

It'd probably be Aventras, but that sort of interior would do, yes.

They could also bother aligning the seats with the windows if they wanted

 

[Energy]

The first question is *how* Chiltern's going to get electrified. Relatively speaking the Wycombe route is fairly easy in as much as it's not shared. The bigger question is what about Harrow - Amersham ? Yes you could provide dual-voltage EMUs with changeovers in the vicinity of Harrow and Amersham (presumably the change would need to happen within the NR estate not TFL) but is the TFL power supply up to handling Chiltern running EMUs over that stretch ?

Personally I think running OHLE and 4th rail makes the most sense with NR being responsible for the OHLE. Its about 13 miles and having special dual voltage stock for the small section makes less sense to me than putting the wires up.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

It'd probably be Aventras, but that sort of interior would do, yes.

They could also bother aligning the seats with the windows if they wanted

Which they did at the start - solely tables to windows. They were excellent.

If one turned up coupled to a 375/8 or whatever it was, straight into the /6.

 

[mr_jrt]

The irony here is the GC was largely built to be expandable as demand increased. So space was left to build alongside the running lines for most of the route. Not for the first time Edward Watkin was right, just not in his lifetime.

In an ideal world you'd get 4 track to Neasden where the routes split. And revisit the Met / Chiltern arrangements north of Harrow, but none of that is quick or easy.

...and that space was used to expand by adding the Met's local lines (that are now the Jubilee Line). Agreed north of Harrow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2021 ==

Unfortunately, I suspect the only way to majorly increase capacity at Marylebone would be to sell the air rights. On the upside though, if you did that to BNP Paribas then you might be able to get back some of the land west of the current station to expand platforms that way. Though in truth, terminal platforms are largely an undesirable outcome in a city centre, so a Crossrail-style tunnel somewhere else is probably preferable, and depending on how many of the services that manages to encompass, the surface platforms might well end up redundant.

 

[Bald Rick]

The first question is *how* Chiltern's going to get electrified. Relatively speaking the Wycombe route is fairly easy in as much as it's not shared. The bigger question is what about Harrow - Amersham ? Yes you could provide dual-voltage EMUs with changeovers in the vicinity of Harrow and Amersham (presumably the change would need to happen within the NR estate not TFL) but is the TFL power supply up to handling Chiltern running EMUs over that stretch ?

I’d expect it to be OLE, and possibly batteries. There’s relatively few issues combining 4R electrification with OLE (compared to 3R and OLE), but TfL will still be wary - something else to go wrong on their network. Batteries likely to be useful on the fleet anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

Agreed, if/when Chiltern gets electrified it would make sense to get a fleet of 7/9 car EMUs like the 345s but with a doors at thirds layout.

What? To carry air all day? While Chiltern gets a bad press for overcrowding (and it certainly happens) there are plenty of services on their network where short train operation (ie 2 cars) does actually exceed the demand.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure if Chiltern have finished juggling the sets into multiples of 3 car yet, that was certainly the plan.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I’d expect it to be OLE, and possibly batteries. There’s relatively few issues combining 4R electrification with OLE (compared to 3R and OLE), but TfL will still be wary - something else to go wrong on their network. Batteries likely to be useful on the fleet anyway.

I would remind you , that the scoping of OLE from Neasden South to Amersham (and beyond) , was extensively looked at in Crossrail 1 , and the tight solum north of Harrow where the post war 4 tracking was squeezed in embankments partly made of reclaimed bomb site rubble (!) was quite a challenge. All sorts of environmental issues north of Ricky - people happy to see the M25 over the Chess Valley , but Lord preserve us the unsightly catenary brings them out in droves. Or did. The then plan was for a feeder into the grid at the nicely named "Mopp End".

The point was made about "short" trains into Marylebone - and the issue of platform sharing with 2 (or more) trains does not make it as easy as one would imagine.

 

[BrianW]

Thank you all for contributions so far. Some 'matters arising' from them:

Cherry Picker says: You’ll struggle to increase capacity too much, the two track section from Finchley Road out to Neasden is mostly on viaducts and has housing built right up to the boundary on one side and the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines on the other. Just the sheer cost of doing anything with that is nuts and it needs to be done to seriously change what the station can deal with.

Many urban 'road-widening' and 'redevelopment' schemes of the 1960s 'sacrificed' lots of houses, and presumably that was thought worth it for the gain?

How many platforms at a terminus station are needed to service a double-track line running at peak capacity?

AOwen and others- In an ideal world you'd get 4 track to Neasden where the routes split. And revisit the Met / Chiltern arrangements north of Harrow, but none of that is quick or easy.

I mentioned about the possibility of an additional tunenel to the west of existing- is that a possibility? And if the Aylesbury services were 'incorporated' somehow with the Met? I recognise the 'territorial' issues related to TFL and how that has played out in relation to eg Watford, the Croxley link, Bakerloo 'truncations' at Queens Park or Harrow & Wealdstone and 'traction chageovers at Rickmansworth ...

Could there then be focus on more-or-less a straightforward up-and-down Marylebone- Birmingham catering for a pattern of regular express/ semifast and stoppers, interleaving with Oxford- Birmingham and Birmingham services as London trains fall off north of Banbury. Sorry if I'm not putting that clearly- I'm not a 'professional'!

Mr-JT- terminal platforms are largely an undesirable outcome in a city centre, so a Crossrail-style tunnel somewhere else is probably preferable, and depending on how many of the services that manages to encompass, the surface platforms might well end up redundant.

Good point- thinking of how Thameslink transformed Blackfriars- Holborn Viaduct/ Farringdon- Kings Cross suburban etc -where might Chiltern trains head to through and beyond central London?

JonathanH re 'carrying air'- a lot of the Underground carries a lot of air a lot of the day. I guess the frequency is thought to facilitate greater demand than if it was reduced to eg1tph?

Chief Planner re catenary- same people who complain about pylons but want electricity!

Looking forward to next round of speculations and responses here ...

 

[Railwaysceptic]

What? To carry air all day? While Chiltern gets a bad press for overcrowding (and it certainly happens) there are plenty of services on their network where short train operation (ie 2 cars) does actually exceed the demand.

Exactly. I'm always puzzled by these threads about Marylebone and the Chiltern Main Line where posters all seem to believe that huge numbers of passengers are creating an intolerable capacity problem that urgently necessitates electrification and extensive 4 tracking. The truth of course is that in comparison with lines from other London termini, the route from Marylebone is scarcely more than a branch line.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

...and that space was used to expand by adding the Met's local lines (that are now the Jubilee Line)

What came first? The GCR lines or the four tracking of the Met? The modern day Chiltern is parallel to the Met/Jubilee from Neasden to Finchley Road, but is at some points a little removed.

 

[PeterC]

JonathanH re 'carrying air'- a lot of the Underground carries a lot of air a lot of the day. I guess the frequency is thought to facilitate greater demand than if it was reduced to eg1tph?

Indeed, carrying fresh air at the extremities of a route or on contra-flow journies is normal on all public transport modes. Should LUL have stayed with multiple units rather than a fixed formation S8 to avoid carrying fresh air from Chalfont to Chesham?

 

[Bald Rick]

Many urban 'road-widening' and 'redevelopment' schemes of the 1960s 'sacrificed' lots of houses, and presumably that was thought worth it for the gain?

It’s not the 1960s anymore.

How many platforms at a terminus station are needed to service a double-track line running at peak capacity?

2-6, depending on the tightness of the turnrounds, the track layout, and the definition of ‘peak capacity’.

Brixton and Walthamstow can both do 36tph off 2 platforms. Charing Cross 28tph off 6. Marylebone could do 24tph off 6, although that might need ATO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. I'm always puzzled by these threads about Marylebone and the Chiltern Main Line where posters all seem to believe that huge numbers of passengers are creating an intolerable capacity problem that urgently necessitates electrification and extensive 4 tracking. The truth of course is that in comparison with lines from other London termini, the route from Marylebone is scarcely more than a branch line.

Electrification is certainly needed - but it's less about capacity and more about the fact that running DMUs into London will rapidly become totally unacceptable. But in terms of the service, exactly the same as it is now[1] but with EMUs would be fine.

[1] Give or take the tendency to put 2-car sets out on their own, but that's solved by there being no such thing as a 2-car 25kV EMU in the UK.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, carrying fresh air at the extremities of a route or on contra-flow journies is normal on all public transport modes. Should LUL have stayed with multiple units rather than a fixed formation S8 to avoid carrying fresh air from Chalfont to Chesham?

The difference between the Metropolitan line and the Chiltern line is that some off-peak trains, particularly stoppers on the route via West Ruislip only have enough demand for 2-cars throughout their journey. At least the S8s to Chesham are relatively busy out to Wembley Park.

 

[HST43257]

Make some 4 car Electrostar with battery and OHLE. Run them predomantsy as 8 car sets up to Aylesbury and 4/8 to Ruislip (peak only) and Banbury. Put Gerrards Cross and High Wycombe terminators on Crossrail. Have 6tph Intercity fasts every hour (3 Oxford, 2 Birmingham & 1 Stratford). Either have all 6 going to Marylebone or have 4 to Marylebone and 2 to OOC. 2 would, in any case, have a connection on/off a XR at High Wycombe. I’d run the IC services with 5/7 coaches, probably an IET variety. I’d also look to send East West Rail to MYB, though this has been labelled as a no in the past by EWR. They’d stop at only a couple of places en route via Amersham (long loops?), or they could take advantage of extra capacity on the Wycombe route (as it’d be 4 tracked up to Ashendon in my plan), though this would mean double tracking the Monks Risborough route.

Marylebone would end up with:
- 4-6tph Intercity
- 2-4tph Aylesbury Slow
- 0-2tph Ruislip Slow (Peak only)
- 2-2tph Banbury Semi then Slow
- 2-2tph East West Rail

10tph total in the off peak but 16tph in total in the peaks. Probably possible with conventional signalling, though ERTMS would be good if possible, at least out to Wycombe and Amersham - or just to where the Amersham route goes off.