Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I think that a crossrail from Marylebone is a solution looking for a problem. There's 6 platforms, which is about right for a two track railway, which is about right for the demand from the areas it goes through. Lengthen trains, electrify, improve signalling so trains can run closer, build a new interchange at West Hampstead, provide some 4-track sections to allow long distance services to overtake a higher frequency Chiltern Metro, but I suspect that the existing Marylebone can accommodate that just fine with minor improvements. What does a mega-project crossrail actually provide? At other stations it could free up platforms badly needed for other services, but I don't see any point to that here.
Regarding a suggested interchange at West Hampstead, I believe that the condition of the ex Great Central London Extension diverging from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Marylebone being built (and to get the ex Metropolitan not to object) was that the GC could not build any intermediate stations along that section.
This would require an amendment to the Act of Parliament that authorised the construction of the GC London Extension, something along the text of "with the exception at West Hampstead", as all Acts of Parliament are still in existence until they get repealed.
I think that a crossrail from Marylebone is a solution looking for a problem. There's 6 platforms, which is about right for a two track railway, which is about right for the demand from the areas it goes through. Lengthen trains, electrify, improve signalling so trains can run closer, build a new interchange at West Hampstead, provide some 4-track sections to allow long distance services to overtake a higher frequency Chiltern Metro, but I suspect that the existing Marylebone can accommodate that just fine with minor improvements. What does a mega-project crossrail actually provide? At other stations it could free up platforms badly needed for other services, but I don't see any point to that here.
Aiming southeast to somewhere near the mint to take over services from Fenchurch Street might be a better balance for the twin tracks, especially as it would allow the DLR to extend into Fenchurch Street from Tower Gateway, or the station closed and sold.There's also a cramped but probably workable launch-site adjacent to Pinchin Street if a few old towers and the arches that once lead to the LTSR Commercial Road Goods Depot, though Christian Street would be blocked by the gradient up to the viaduct. The old Bow Common gasworks would have been better, and would release more land for development, but it has just been redeveloped, and other than that the only practical worksites are on green spaces and allotments.
Heading south, it is hard to see where a launch site could be dug or which two-track route could be taken over.
It might also be worth taking over some of the Met services as well, and pairing with a 4-track route.
I can actually see potential in something like this. Wondering whether the exploitation of 'air rights' developments secures more income or less than clearance at ground level. To 'lose' Marylebone and Fenchurch Street, maybe Charing Cross, (and Waterloo East?), Cannon Street ... Someone thought it was 'worth it' to 'lose' Holborn Viaduct, and to 'develop' Blackfriars above the river.
And the kind of 'interchange' onto the Tube as at Stratford, Vauxhall, maybe others (eg West Hampstead?ish), Ealing Broadway too far out?
And it hadn't occurred to me to funnel trains (wholesale?) down onto the Met, whether to Aldgate or to somewhere(s) beyond.
Dreaming on ...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Regarding a suggested interchange at West Hampstead, I believe that the condition of the ex Great Central London Extension diverging from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Marylebone being built (and to get the ex Metropolitan not to object) was that the GC could not build any intermediate stations along that section.
This would require an amendment to the Act of Parliament that authorised the construction of the GC London Extension, something along the text of "with the exception at West Hampstead", as all Acts of Parliament are still in existence until they get repealed.
IIRC and maybe things have changed .. it was the case that a Compulsory Purchase Order extinguished all restrictive covenants? Where there's a will ...
West Hampstead has seen massive construction of new apartment blocks , both beside the Thameslink route along Iverson Road -and also / especially on the what was semi-derelict land between the NLL station (now massively improved) , and the Met line corridor. Just a bit tricky to come up with crayonista schemes for an interchange. There might have been options around 1979 when it was mentioned in various media publications.
West Hampstead has seen massive construction of new apartment blocks , both beside the Thameslink route along Iverson Road -and also / especially on the what was semi-derelict land between the NLL station (now massively improved) , and the Met line corridor. Just a bit tricky to come up with crayonista schemes for an interchange. There might have been options around 1979 when it was mentioned in various media publications.
Yeah- I've been knocked back on that one before. I'm trying to go with the 'big idea' kind of approach.
Just another thought- any scope for eg something like a new line parallel, underneath or like Wuppertal above??
Yeah- I've been knocked back on that one before. I'm trying to go with the 'big idea' kind of approach.
Just another thought- any scope for eg something like a new line parallel, underneath or like Wuppertal above??
First question - does Marylebone really need a massive capacity increase (above which has been described / debated before ?) - and nothing wrong with having "big ideas" - but they need a solid dose of need and (dare I say it) - "affordability" -
Regarding a suggested interchange at West Hampstead, I believe that the condition of the ex Great Central London Extension diverging from Harrow-on-the-Hill to Marylebone being built (and to get the ex Metropolitan not to object) was that the GC could not build any intermediate stations along that section.
This would require an amendment to the Act of Parliament that authorised the construction of the GC London Extension, something along the text of "with the exception at West Hampstead", as all Acts of Parliament are still in existence until they get repealed.
I'm not sure that's the case. When I worked at TfL looking at the West Hampstead interchange project it was never mentioned (although I wasn't on the technical side) - there were a couple of options under consideration then - a mega underground interchange and a street level interchange with better signage. I think the better signage option (sans a new Chiltern station) never happened either...
First question - does Marylebone really need a massive capacity increase (above which has been described / debated before ?) - and nothing wrong with having "big ideas" - but they need a solid dose of need and (dare I say it) - "affordability" -
Maybe Chief Planner you've 'been here before', and often in your 62311 postings, against my mere 289 and Kingston Dan's 22- thank you Dan and welcome to the fray.
You're right of course, and I have kind of moved on a bit- I can see that by closing the current Marylebone Station and refocusing (whether going down the 'Met ' line of some kind of Crossrail 3 or 4 or whatever), quite a lot of possibilities could be opened up, and shot down.
(I remember Frank Field MP was asked by Tony Blair to 'think the unthinkable' regarding Social care; he did and was sacked; and nothing has changed on Social care in the nearly 25 years since.)
London's Snow Hill station closed in 1916, over 100 years ago; now we have City Thameslink with something over 30tph IIUC.
Maybe Marylebone doesn't need 'a massive capacity increase'.
There’s a difference between getting the most out of the line while keeping it recognisable, or replacing it by a Crossrail.
If you want to dream medium then think about how efficiently you could use the existing space: eight platforms?
First question - does Marylebone really need a massive capacity increase (above which has been described / debated before ?) - and nothing wrong with having "big ideas" - but they need a solid dose of need and (dare I say it) - "affordability" -
Absolutely - currently off-peak Marylebone dispatches 10 tph - 2 x Birmingham, 2 x Oxford, 2 x Aylesbury via Amersham, 1 x Aylesbury via Wycombe, 1 x Banbury, 1 x Wycombe, 1 x Gerrards Cross.
10 tph on a 2 track railway (which it is to Neasden) is pretty intensive use, you'd struggle to send more up there and given the engineering challenges, more capacity is likely to be achieved with new rolling stock when the 16x's come up for replacement. Add in more will be run Ruislip - Wycombe and beyond using Old Oak Common as the terminus.
I’d say there’s capacity to do more, especially given that they are all doing the same thing from Marylebone. In comparison to other “2 track” railways into London, standard off peak:
WCML fasts: 12/13 (with various stopping patterns on the ‘two track’ section.
SWML fasts: 12 (different stopping patterns)
SWML slows: 16
GWML mains: 16
I’d say there’s capacity to do more, especially given that they are all doing the same thing from Marylebone. In comparison to other “2 track” railways into London, standard off peak:
WCML fasts: 12/13 (with various stopping patterns on the ‘two track’ section.
SWML fasts: 12 (different stopping patterns)
SWML slows: 16
GWML mains: 16
Fair point - I'd looked at the Moorgate branch which is sending and receiving 9 tph on 2 tracks and into / out of 2 platforms.
I assume it depends on how tight you want to run things and whether you have any recovery / workarounds when problems arise - so both the WCML and SWML if one pair is 'blocked' (I'm thinking track / infrastructure problem rather than fatality as the latter might lead to all lines being blocked) then conceivably you can keep some things running by diverting things between fasts and slows - whereas with the Chiltern line which is 2 track there isn't that luxury ?
On the four track main lines, it's always possible for stoppers to be diverted to the other pair. On Chiltern the only overtaking possibilities are at the Ruislips and then not until Princes Risborough. Catching up a stopper at Wembley or later or earlier stations is presumably a constraint on how frequently trains can arrive at or depart Marylebone.
Out of Paddington on the main lines, most trains are non-stop to Reading, which has multiple platforms.
On the four track main lines, it's always possible for stoppers to be diverted to the other pair. On Chiltern the only overtaking possibilities are at the Ruislips and then not until Princes Risborough. Catching up a stopper at Wembley or later or earlier stations is presumably a constraint on how frequently trains can arrive at or depart Marylebone.
Out of Paddington on the main lines, most trains are non-stop to Reading, which has multiple platforms.
That tunnel was made with room for four lines (though haven't heard if that's four electrified lines). I hear the plan is to have passing loops at all three and every service will stop at one of them, but it probably depends on how efficient each one is (ie does Wycombe have space for long enough loops?).
Ten years ago today, I had a lucky escape. I was on the last train through the ‘Tesco tunnel’ at Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, before it dramatically collapsed, closing the Chiltern …
Fair point - I'd looked at the Moorgate branch which is sending and receiving 9 tph on 2 tracks and into / out of 2 platforms.
I assume it depends on how tight you want to run things and whether you have any recovery / workarounds when problems arise - so both the WCML and SWML if one pair is 'blocked' (I'm thinking track / infrastructure problem rather than fatality as the latter might lead to all lines being blocked) then conceivably you can keep some things running by diverting things between fasts and slows - whereas with the Chiltern line which is 2 track there isn't that luxury ?
I suppose my point is that line capacity south of Neasden isn’t a problem. Stopping patterns / infrastructure provision between Neasden and (at least) High Wycombe would be a problem, were additional services to be operated. It’s a similar issue to the West Anglia line - 2 tracks, serving 3 markets, with widely differing stopping patterns. You have to do one of three things:
1) slow down the faster trains by putting more steps (or pathing time) in
2) speed up the slower trains by taking stops out
3) build additional tracks; in this case probably loops - and these need to cover at least two consecutive stations to avoid extending journey times for the stopping services.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ten years ago today, I had a lucky escape. I was on the last train through the ‘Tesco tunnel’ at Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, before it dramatically collapsed, closing the Chiltern …
Wembley Stadium also has plenty of room to reinstate the loops. I'm not sure how much good it would do, but it might help on the Up direction - if something was being caught up by a fast behind it, have it call at Wembley and be overtaken. Country-bound, I guess it might enable a second flight.
Would closing the Sudbury stations help?
Denham station could also be rebuilt - and might even be able to be an extension of the Ruislip tracking, and create a better dynamic loop/quad section.
Beaconsfield could definitely have them on both lines. It was part of a future Evergreen plan once upon a time.
Wycombe the issue is also the alignment. Even trains on a new passing track would have to slow down a lot. And it'd probably have to be bi-directional. This bi-di line could start a fair ways back, eastwards - with everything stopping moved onto a new line, with a short fourth line for terminating services. Westwards, it's a roomy two but I think three would mean full relaying, so wouldn't be worth it.
You could definitely add another bay, probably on both sides, and take back some parking space, if needed. A little like the extra SWT side platform which was added at Reading. And then have nothing terminate at Gerrards Cross, and address that.
When I first saw this thread I was pleased, a while ago I was looking at Marylebone and it was pretty clear just from looking at it from Google Maps that it was designed to be enlarged at a later date as demonstrated in numerous earlier posts. Shortly after which I thought that Marylebone would have been ideal instead of Euston for HS2. Obviously excluding the substantial number of residences that would have to be relocated and then demolished. But in terms of destruction, only one listed building would have to be demolished and that is the BNP building, if you wanted you could retain the façade overlooking the highway. But now HS2 from London to Birmingham is pretty much set in stone!
Recently watching the TV programme about Paddington Station has got me thinking, if an enlarged Marlebone could be used to increase capacity at Paddington ?
Im not sure if the existing lines would have the capacity or if a new tunnel section would have to be created! Its a bit out of my depth Im afraid being not too familiar with London.
Recently watching the TV programme about Paddington Station has got me thinking, if an enlarged Marlebone could be used to increase capacity at Paddington ?
In many respects it already is, apart from Aylesbury, all of its services are traditionally Paddington routes, and the new Oxford route is also providing relief to Paddington
In many respects it already is, apart from Aylesbury, all of its services are traditionally Paddington routes, and the new Oxford route is also providing relief to Paddington
Yep I would agree with this. Another 2 tph to Oxford (including Parkway relief), plus being the prime route to Banbury, Leamington, Warwick and Stratford uA for some time now. All traditional GWR territory.
I'm not sure what else they could do in this space, other than increase Oxford 1tph, potentially with a run through to the Cowley line. Go hourly to Stratford perhaps, from the Banbury terminator (with new stock).
Stopping services out to Wycombe and Princes Risborough ran to and from Marylebone in BR days and I believe had also done so back in the days of the joint GW and GC ownership of the line through Wycombe.
Stopping services out to Wycombe and Princes Risborough ran to and from Marylebone in BR days and I believe had also done so back in the days of the joint GW and GC ownership of the line through Wycombe.
I think the point being made is that when built Marylebone was to serve the GC lines which went to the Midlands, whereas the GWR had built a route from Paddington to Birmingham & the West Mids.
Now there are no services to Birmingham / West Mids from Paddington - these are all sent from Marylebone using lines built by the GC, then the GC/GW joint and lastly GWR built lines.
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?
I'm sure I saw a plan for 4tph from OOC: 1 to High Wycombe, 1 to HW/Aylesbury/MKC, 1 to Oxford, 1 to Banbury.
That might enable an extra via Amersham, although I thought the Met line was due to get increased frequencies also (not sure if pegged for the Amersham/Chesham route).
You may have seen that but it was since reduced to 4 that go no further than Princes Risborough. I hope they do make it easy to transfer from the fast trains from Oxford/Birmingham to an OOC train as far south as possible for a quick total journey.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
Clue in the Forum title: Speculative Ideas?
