Reinstating passing loops on the Chiltern Sudbury stations

[MatthewHutton]

Possibly 1 minute at best.

Class 800 has the same acceleration time to 125 as the Chiltern DMUs do to 100. And a FLIRT train would be better than that. All in all difficult to see the gain being only a minute overall. Likely 30 seconds a stop or more.

FLIRT trains are insanely quick off the mark.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2025 ==

If that is the sort of thing that you find hugely depressing, I’d seek help.

The Shinkansen has one at every stop pretty much to help run slower and faster service. It’s a good way of doing things and adds flexibility.

 

[HSTEd]

The Shinkansen has one at every stop pretty much to help run slower and faster service. It’s a good way of doing things and adds flexibility.

I will not that peripheral Shinkansen lines seem to have less and less of them, compared to the original major trunk lines.

Possibly because the lines they are building now are functionally branches.

 

[Zomboid]

If you're on a slower Shinkansen then you can spend quite a long time sitting at one of these wayside stations waiting for two expresses to overtake. Which is the issue with only providing the loops at stations.

 

[Falcon1200]

If you're on a slower Shinkansen then you can spend quite a long time sitting at one of these wayside stations waiting for two expresses to overtake. Which is the issue with only providing the loops at stations.

To avoid that issue the loops should encompass two stations; ie local enters the loop, stops at station A, trundles along the loop and stops at station B, by which time the express(es) has overtaken the local and is long gone. A whole new level expense over and above that already needed, of course!

 

[Instinct04]

Chiltern can get away with providing astronomically low frequencies on their inner surburban stoppers due to other more frequent rail lines being in the area.

At a glance, I don’t like Chiltern Railways. I am so glad I don’t have to depend on them for regular travel.

How comes Chiltern don’t restore the fast lines through beaconsfield? Also why don’t they build a station at Wembley Park?

 

[sad1e]

How comes Chiltern don’t restore the fast lines through beaconsfield? Also why don’t they build a station at Wembley Park?

Why would they need a Station at Wembley Park in the first place, it would just be an unnessecary rebuilding of the station to accommodate new platforms.

Wembley is already served well enough on the CML from Wembley Stadium Which has more than enough provision for the match day traffic of the Stadium , and as for people coming from the Aylesbury - Amersham Chiltern served station's, it isn't exactly a difficult change to the met line at Rickmansworth or Harrow on the Hill.

One thing to do with the Aylesbury via met service that could easily be done and I see no reason why it shouldn't be is reinstating stops at moor park to connect with Watford services. I know they used to do it back in the 90's and early 00's from old timetables , any ideas why they stopped in the first place?

 

[Mgameing123]

Why would they need a Station at Wembley Park in the first place, it would just be an unnessecary rebuilding of the station to accommodate new platforms.

Wembley is already served well enough on the CML from Wembley Stadium Which has more than enough provision for the match day traffic of the Stadium , and as for people coming from the Aylesbury - Amersham Chiltern served station's, it isn't exactly a difficult change to the met line at Rickmansworth or Harrow on the Hill.

One thing to do with the Aylesbury via met service that could easily be done and I see no reason why it shouldn't be is reinstating stops at moor park to connect with Watford services. I know they used to do it back in the 90's and early 00's from old timetables , any ideas why they stopped in the first place?

Would increase connectivity from places like Aylesbury? But yeah I agree, Chiltern should rather stop at West Hampstead instead so we can make use of this interchange opportunity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern can get away with providing astronomically low frequencies on their inner surburban stoppers due to other more frequent rail lines being in the area.

Exactly, there are other, better options. Personally I would look to close them and make Wembley Stadium events only.

I'd also look to work with London Underground to rename Wembley Park to Wembley Stadium. It's by far the highest capacity way to get there, yet people are probably pushed to Wembley Stadium simply by putting the logical thing into a planner. Wembley Stadium could become Wembley Harrow Road.

 

[Mgameing123]

Exactly, there are other, better options. Personally I would look to close them and make Wembley Stadium events only.

I'd also look to work with London Underground to rename Wembley Park to Wembley Stadium. It's by far the highest capacity way to get there, yet people are probably pushed to Wembley Stadium simply by putting the logical thing into a planner. Wembley Stadium could become Wembley Harrow Road.

I disagree, we should be boosting the frequencies to the intermediate stations, not the opposite. Wembley Stadium should be served everyday no matter what aswell.

 

[NCT]

I disagree, we should be boosting the frequencies to the intermediate stations, not the opposite. Wembley Stadium should be served everyday no matter what aswell.

For what purpose?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Would increase connectivity from places like Aylesbury? But yeah I agree, Chiltern should rather stop at West Hampstead instead so we can make use of this interchange opportunity.

It has already been explained to you in other threads that constructing platforms at West Hampstead for Chiltern trains would involve massive property purchase and destruction and cost enormous sums for minimal benefit. Neasden would be a more sensible site for changing trains.

 

[Mgameing123]

It has already been explained to you in other threads that constructing platforms at West Hampstead for Chiltern trains would involve massive property purchase and destruction and cost enormous sums for minimal benefit. Neasden would be a more sensible site for changing trains.

Neasden? Where is the Thameslink and Overground at in Neasden?

Also it shouldn't be too expensive.

 

[stuu]

Neasden? Where is the Thameslink and Overground at in Neasden?

Also it shouldn't be too expensive.

It's a much better interchange but it would be astronomically expensive. A whole street would need to be demolished to make room

 

[Eurostarosaur]

It has already been explained to you in other threads that constructing platforms at West Hampstead for Chiltern trains would involve massive property purchase and destruction and cost enormous sums for minimal benefit. Neasden would be a more sensible site for changing trains.

Sorry to query this again, couldn't they install some platforms and then route passengers through the Jubilee Line Underground station entrance? Why would it need a big new station entrance?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Sorry to query this again, couldn't they install some platforms and then route passengers through the Jubilee Line Underground station entrance? Why would it need a big new station entrance?

There's no room for extra platforms - the lines run adjacent to properties all along there.

It would be pointless knocking everything down for new platforms only to then squeeze everyone in through the existing Underground station - and there's no way all the demolition required would happen anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also it shouldn't be too expensive.

If hundreds of millons of pounds isn’t too expensive for enabling this kind of interchange, then I don’t know what is.

 

[sad1e]

Neasden would be a more sensible site for changing trains.

Building an interchange at neasden would be Frankly a waste of money , there is limited space to build there and if it is built south of the junction it will suffer from the same service problems as the Sudbury stations.

In my opinion the only reasonable place to build an interchange now would be Finchley road, there's plenty of land around to build a station in the form of the ever increasingly rundown 0² centre shopping centre.

The site of the old Finchley road midland was nearby Which means the tracks are parted enough on the Midland Mainline there to easily allow platforms to be built for Thameslink trains to stop there and there seems to be much more space by the CML and even some greenspace that could be used in the building of the Chiltern platforms.

 

[Class15]

Absolutely no point of Neasden. Either West Hampstead, Finchley Road or nothing for me.

 

[cle]

Finchley Road is just so close to West Hampstead, re Thameslink.

For a Chiltern call, both are tight but if I had to choose one for this topic, I'd say West Hampstead for Chiltern staggered to the western side (ie across the road from the Jubilee station) - with an island platform (nothing goes too fast if passing) - and no Met solution.

It would be too busy and having the Met/Jubilee change at Finchley Road helps with that distribution.

As for the Sudbury stations - I would close them both as well as Northolt Park which is better used but still tiny for London. Sub 200k for all three! Ditch them, they all have higher frequency alts on the tube which has capacity out this way, and are low density, local employment, zero growth suburbs.

Keep Wembley Stadium (there has been a lot of residential and commercial development there - it's a more desirable place to live than previously, and a very quick ride to Marylebone) - reinstate the loops there if useful.

 

[London Trains]

If you had the money to build a proper interchange, surely you would build a full-scale interchange for Chiltern, Met, Jubilee, Overground, Thameslink and maybe even EMR services on the eastern side of the road at West Hampstead, where most of the non-railway land houses student accommodation and car dealerships, so wouldn't be overly difficult to demolish.

The Met line would no longer serve Finchley Road in this scenario.

 

[sad1e]

and maybe even EMR .

I could see the Corby services stopping there if that did come to plan

 

[NCT]

If you had the money to build a proper interchange, surely you would build a full-scale interchange for Chiltern, Met, Jubilee, Overground, Thameslink and maybe even EMR services on the eastern side of the road at West Hampstead, where most of the non-railway land houses student accommodation and car dealerships, so wouldn't be overly difficult to demolish.

The Met line would no longer serve Finchley Road in this scenario.

That sounds a bit like saying 'if you had £10 surely just spend £100'. Well we don't even have £10.

 

[London Trains]

That sounds a bit like saying 'if you had £10 surely just spend £100'. Well we don't even have £10.

You're missing the point entirely, using your analogy what I am actually saying is "if you have £10 then don't spend it on this at all, wait until you have £80-90 and then spend £100" - i.e. don't bother wasting money until you can build a full-scale, useful interchange.

 

[Instinct04]

How would this new West Hamstead Interchange look? Surely they would need to demolish things and reroute some tracks to make it all work?

Would this new hub serve LU, LO, Chiltern and EMR?

If so, I could see the Chiltern Aylesbury slows calling here (both via Hugh Wycombe or Amersham)
I can also see EMR Corby services stopping here too, as mentioned above.

 

[NCT]

You're missing the point entirely, using your analogy what I am actually saying is "if you have £10 then don't spend it on this at all, wait until you have £80-90 and then spend £100" - i.e. don't bother wasting money until you can build a full-scale, useful interchange.

Fair enough.

Well, we won't have £90 and the return would be nowhere near, would be my view.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you had the money to build a proper interchange, surely you would build a full-scale interchange for Chiltern, Met, Jubilee, Overground, Thameslink and maybe even EMR services on the eastern side of the road at West Hampstead, where most of the non-railway land houses student accommodation and car dealerships, so wouldn't be overly difficult to demolish.

My bold.

I think those people who have not done it comprehensively misunderstand how gaining the powers to compulsory purchase property works. Just because an area is student housing and car dealerships does not make it easier (nor cheaper).

In the scenario described, you would be spending north of a billion quid just to enable a frankly small number of people to interchange between the Chiltern line and NLL / Thameslink.

 

[London Trains]

Deleted

 

[Bald Rick]

My point was that it is easier to get rid of the current owners than it would be getting residents out of houses, I'm not saying it is easier to get the powers to do so at all.

But it isn’t easier, that’s the point.

Re the second paragraph, here we go again constantly moaning about money on the speculative part of the forum (on a post where I even said if you had the money) without saying anything constructive. This forum is becoming a cesspit.

But surely the point of a speculative discussion is to consider all components of a proposal, pros, cons, risks, etc.?

 

[NCT]

Just because something is speculative doesn't mean the assumptions of having money, or that money being wisely spent, shouldn't be challenged.

 

[BlueLeanie]

If there are capacity issues, would a bidirectional passing loop be practical?

Or as I've mentioned before, why not offset bidirectional passing loops? So two stations, perhaps miles apart each have three platforms. Two standard up & down and one bi?