The case for electrifying the Chiltern mainline

[cle]

Chiltern wiring is such a low-hanging fruit, it's insane that it hasn't had more attention.

High frequency services, with many stops and skip stopping patterns, a hilly route... journey time savings could be really impressive. I'd think maybe 15 mins quicker to Birmingham. It might need some more of the passing capacity works finished at the southern end, like Beaconsfield and Denham. And it could coincide with the Snow Hill metro lines (and Leamington to Oxford) - which are also high frequency.

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern wiring is such a low-hanging fruit, it's insane that it hasn't had more attention.

High frequency services, with many stops and skip stopping patterns, a hilly route... journey time savings could be really impressive. I'd think maybe 15 mins quicker to Birmingham. It might need some more of the passing capacity works finished at the southern end, like Beaconsfield and Denham. And it could coincide with the Snow Hill metro lines (and Leamington to Oxford) - which are also high frequency.

There aren't any previously planned passing works to start, let alone finish. 15 is optimistic I think but double figures should be possible.

 

[cle]

Beaconsfield was in scope for one stage of Evergreen, I'm sure of it. Perhaps the Tesco fun and games derailed it...

In any case, there are clear sections where a third or fourth track reinstated could allow passing and higher line speed. Princes Risborough sticks out as another, from memory. And of course, quadding between the Ruislips was often mentioned - again could be useful for this, and also a possible OOC service which has also cropped up.

 

[Bald Rick]

Chiltern wiring is such a low-hanging fruit, it's insane that it hasn't had more attention.

High frequency services, with many stops and skip stopping patterns, a hilly route... journey time savings could be really impressive. I'd think maybe 15 mins quicker to Birmingham. It might need some more of the passing capacity works finished at the southern end, like Beaconsfield and Denham. And it could coincide with the Snow Hill metro lines (and Leamington to Oxford) - which are also high frequency.

How would it save 15 minutes?

 

[BrianW]

Chiltern wiring so obvious .. it's insane ...

So how come, if it's so obvious, it hasn't happened. Is it that all politicians are malign or that folk in DfT or whoever plans such things are useless, for instance?
Perhaps there is something (a lot, even) to be said for investment of this kind, and maybe it could be done at the same time as 'levelling up' the North or getting to Swansea.
I lived in Bicester a long time; I saw track lifted and singled; I thought HS2 might have taken that alignment. A lot of people who would have benefited voted to keep green fields.
I liked the idea of 'rolling programmes'. Yes things would have been very different if the teams that started the WCML electrification had rolled on around the country; they didn't.

There may be some major rethinking post-Covid19; I dare say those who are privileged to llive in the Chilterns will have the ear of government ok.

 

[HSTEd]

How would it save 15 minutes?

It would be interesting to put a Class 395 against the current service.
But I think 15 minutes is likely pushing it.

 

[BrianW]

I guess a commuter having 3 hours a week longer with family might appreciate that, though I would have thought the case would be better put in terms of journeys taken off the road and savings in emissions, including carbon and NOx.
I can also see that such improvements will change perceptions and travel perceptions, incl how commutable a place is, as Metroland did, or Peterborough. Leamington Spa in an hour?( I await however seeing a transformed Doncaster despite its 5tph at peak time; although they did vote for 'the blue party' so maybe they will get levelled up yet).
Can this government be seen to be spending in 'the south'? Maybe if it linked (as it once did) to e.g deprived Birkenhead(via GW), Mansfield, Rotherham (via GC)?

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be interesting to put a Class 395 against the current service.
But I think 15 minutes is likely pushing it.

A 395 would be quicker accelerating, and it might even get a higher top speed on some sections. But it wouldn’t get around all the services the fast Birmingham’s are timetabled around on minimum headway. A typical fast Birmingham is on minimum headway at Marylebone, Bicester South, Banbury, Leamington and Moor St.

 

[HSTEd]

A 395 would be quicker accelerating, and it might even get a higher top speed on some sections. But it wouldn’t get around all the services the fast Birmingham’s are timetabled around on minimum headway. A typical fast Birmingham is on minimum headway at Marylebone, Bicester South, Banbury, Leamington and Moor St.

Well if we put the 395s on all the trains on the Chiltern Main Line.... wouldn't that help that situation as the faster acceleration will reduce the stopping journey times too?

 

[Bald Rick]

Well if we put the 395s on all the trains on the Chiltern Main Line.... wouldn't that help that situation as the faster acceleration will reduce the stopping journey times too?

True. Albeit dwell times would be an issue. Now if they were 700s with the limiters off...

 

[AndrewE]

I don't understand why electrification of every line into and through every conurbation isn't part of a (prioritised) rolling programme - especially any line serving central London!
You would think that those in power were immune to all respiratory diseases, and their island paradises (and houses at Sandbanks) were somehow going to be magically lifted above rising sea levels, the way they are behaving...
Private Eye pointed out that in the budget "green transport" was going to get £1 billion, while roads were to get £27 billion.

 

[tbtc]

Why would you want to put fast accelerating trains on the Chiltern line though?

Surely, if the HS2 threads have taught me anything, it's that nobody wants to get to Birmingham faster (and that only rich businessmen would benefit etc etc)

</ tongue in cheek>

 

[HSTEd]

Surely, if the HS2 threads have taught me anything, it's that nobody wants to get to Birmingham faster (and that only rich businessmen would benefit etc etc)

To perform the crucial humanitarian mission of allowing people to escape Birmingham faster!

(also tongue in cheek for the avoidance of doubt)

True. Albeit dwell times would be an issue. Now if they were 700s with the limiters off...

Well I only cite 395 because I have an actual acceleration curve for them.

 

[AndrewE]

A 395 would be quicker accelerating, and it might even get a higher top speed on some sections. But it wouldn’t get around all the services the fast Birmingham’s are timetabled around on minimum headway. A typical fast Birmingham is on minimum headway at Marylebone, Bicester South, Banbury, Leamington and Moor St.

Maybe everything any "bigger" than a branch line should be looked at for quadruple-tracking...

 

[Bald Rick]

To perform the crucial humanitarian mission of allowing people to escape Birmingham faster!

(also tongue in cheek for the avoidance of doubt)



Well I only cite 395 because I have an actual acceleration curve for them.

I don’t have the data, but I know a 700 on AC can do 0-100mph in about 2 miles.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe everything any "bigger" than a branch line should be looked at for quadruple-tracking...

Are you suggesting someone should build an additional 2 new tracks from London to Birmingham through the Chilterns?

 

[AndrewE]

Are you suggesting someone should build an additional 2 new tracks from London to Birmingham through the Chilterns?

Aren't there quite a few former 4-track sections that are now just 2? or have all the fast lines been reinstated past the old platform loops and slow lines?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I don't understand why electrification of every line into and through every conurbation isn't part of a (prioritised) rolling programme - especially any line serving central London!

Because money doesn't grow on trees, although many rail enthusiasts are determined not to believe that. Electrification is mega expensive; the U. K. railway exists at the tax-payers' expense and most tax-payers don't regard railways as especially important.

 

[Bald Rick]

Aren't there quite a few former 4-track sections that are now just 2? or have all the fast lines been reinstated past the old platform loops and slow lines?

Sorry I should have included a

There was only one of what could properly be called a stretch of four running lines, on the former GW from just south of Dorridge to Moor St. There are some plans to reinstate some of this in the medium to long term.

There were several sections of platform loops: from memory Wembley Stadium, both Ruislips, Denham, Gerrards X, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes Risboro’ and Bicester. No plans to reinstate, and in any event looping trains has a significant effect on the looped train’s journey time, unless you can put at least two consecutive station loops together for a four track section.

 

[AndrewE]

Because money doesn't grow on trees, although many rail enthusiasts are determined not to believe that. Electrification is mega expensive; the U. K. railway exists at the tax-payers' expense and most tax-payers don't regard railways as especially important.

An alternative view is that railways are probably the most energy-efficient part of our transport infrastructure and need to be expanded to move the greatest proportion of whatever we really need to move around that is sensible.
The budget had £1 billion for energy-efficient transport and £27 billion for "new" roads. So much for a government with a green agenda.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

An alternative view is that railways are probably the most energy-efficient part of our transport infrastructure and need to be expanded to move the greatest proportion of whatever we really need to move around that is sensible.
The budget had £1 billion for energy-efficient transport and £27 billion for "new" roads. So much for a government with a green agenda.

If you believe that considerations of energy efficiency make value for money unimportant, you are very much mistaken.

Railways are not always in all circumstances the most energy efficient form of transport. Where traffic levels - passenger or freight - are low, rail can be energy inefficient. Large amounts of energy are also used in creating the items involved in railway modernisation, such as steel masts for electrification schemes. Investment in some road projects can reduce energy consumption; as when a continuous traffic jam is eliminated.

 

[NSEFAN]

I wonder if choosing not to electrify the route is in part to do with the current fleet. The Turbos have plenty of life left in them, whereas much older HSTs and DMUs in the north need/needed replacement first. With limited electrification resources and no urgent need to get rid of Chiltern DMUs, it made sense to focus wiring in other parts of the country.

Maybe in 10-20 years time we will see another total route modernisation, with ERTMS and wiring along with new trains?

 

[AndrewE]

If you believe that considerations of energy efficiency make value for money unimportant, you are very much mistaken.

luckily [most] governments take a broader view on what is worth doing, including considering the health consequences (for others) of selfish people insisting on driving into town and city centres.

Railways are not always in all circumstances the most energy efficient form of transport. Where traffic levels - passenger or freight - are low, rail can be energy inefficient.

that may well be

Large amounts of energy are also used in creating the items involved in railway modernisation, such as steel masts for electrification schemes.

which doesn't apply to roadbuilding then? Not to mention the contrast with the energy used in making road vehicles compared with that in the long life-span of railway vehicles.

Investment in some road projects can reduce energy consumption; as when a continuous traffic jam is eliminated.

...In which case that traffic should probably be on trains or other public transport anyway. Time to take out road capacity and reallocate the space and money to active transport and public transport.

 

[Domh245]

I wonder if choosing not to electrify the route is in part to do with the current fleet. The Turbos have plenty of life left in them, whereas much older HSTs and DMUs in the north need/needed replacement first. With limited electrification resources and no urgent need to get rid of Chiltern DMUs, it made sense to focus wiring in other parts of the country.

Maybe in 10-20 years time we will see another total route modernisation, with ERTMS and wiring along with new trains?

Agreed, although I think we should be looking at nearer to 10 than 20 years. The older 168s will be hitting 30 years so would be ripe for replacement, and needless to say that whatever does replace them simply cannot be pure diesel

 

[BrianW]

Moderator- do move this somewhere more appropriate by all means)
I did a few years back now (when HS1 was coming on) suggest to DfT a High Speed network linking London-Dover (HS1)/ Southampton/ Bristol/ Cardiff/ Birmingham/ Manchester/ Nottingham/ Sheffield/ Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh/Glasgow with tracks taking out the outside lanes of the motorways (incl eg M40/Chilterns) with stations (GC-liike central platform?) with parking an/or (better) coordinated electric bus/ tram connections at motorway junctions/ 'hubs'. I got a letter back- we might be thinking ...
I'd have had a 'Grand Central' station under Hyde Park- tunnels under Edgware Road, Bayswater Road, Oxford Street, Brompton Road etc to reach M1, M2, M3 etc
A dream/ pipedream?

 

[Bald Rick]

Moderator- do move this somewhere more appropriate by all means)
I did a few years back now (when HS1 was coming on) suggest to DfT a High Speed network linking London-Dover (HS1)/ Southampton/ Bristol/ Cardiff/ Birmingham/ Manchester/ Nottingham/ Sheffield/ Leeds/ Newcastle/ Edinburgh/Glasgow with tracks taking out the outside lanes of the motorways (incl eg M40/Chilterns) with stations (GC-liike central platform?) with parking an/or (better) coordinated electric bus/ tram connections at motorway junctions/ 'hubs'. I got a letter back- we might be thinking ...
I'd have had a 'Grand Central' station under Hyde Park- tunnels under Edgware Road, Bayswater Road, Oxford Street, Brompton Road etc to reach M1, M2, M3 etc
A dream/ pipedream?

Definitely a dream.

Firstly, motorways do not have alignment suitable for high speed railways, as anyone who has driven around the Otmoor curve of the M40 at more than 80mph will testify.

Secondly, junctions.

Finally a big tunnelled station under Lonodn. Non starter, there’s not enough space without extensive demolition (and around Hyde park, that’s very expensive).

 

[Dr Hoo]

An alternative view is that railways are probably the most energy-efficient part of our transport infrastructure and need to be expanded to move the greatest proportion of whatever we really need to move around that is sensible.
The budget had £1 billion for energy-efficient transport and £27 billion for "new" roads. So much for a government with a green agenda.

I think that it has been established that notwithstanding some sensationalist coverage in the press (e.g. The Guardian) there are hardly any genuine 'new roads' planned beyond an additional Thames crossing. There are few 're-announced'/completion of carriageway duallings that have been on the agenda for decades (such as A66, A46, in Cornwall and Stonehenge bypass tunnel), and junction improvements - both types of projects largely driven by safety benefits - and a lot of bread and butter maintenance and renewal work that is more akin to a Network Rail Control Period settlement. The latter was, of course, already in the system having been established outside the annual Budget process.
(Probably all rather academic at the moment anyway.)

 

[Aictos]

Personally I think we should first consider electrifying Marylebone to Banbury including to Oxford via Oxford Parkway and Oxford via Kings Sutton as Stage 1 which assumes that Oxford to Didcot Parkway has already been electrified.

This would remove DMUs from operating south of Banbury with the exception of the Amersham route as well as remove DMUs from the Thames Valley with the exception of the various branches with EMUs operating from Paddington to Oxford and maybe to Banbury.

Stage 2 should be continuing from Banbury to Birmingham Moor Street via Leamington Spa together with the line to Coventry also included to be electrified which should mean all Chiltern services bar the Amersham ones being operated by electric traction as well as meaning XC having OHL between Manchester and Reading via Coventry.

Stage 3 should be classed as a West Midlands scheme which would be Kidderminister to Hatton via Bearley and to Stratford Upon Avon via Earlswood which should also have Kings Sutton to Birmingham New Street via Bordesley Jcn, St Andrews Jcn, Grand Jcn and Proof House Jcn electrified although the Kings Norton to Birmingham New Street works should be completed first as doing so would give CrossCity EMU services from Bromsgrove a alternative route into New Street if the route via University is not available.

 

[PartyOperator]

Investment in some road projects can reduce energy consumption; as when a continuous traffic jam is eliminated.

All the evidence I've seen (including the investment cases for new, traffic-jam-eliminating road schemes) suggests that removing traffic jams leads to a net increase in traffic and an increase in fuel burned. That's almost the entire point of building new roads.

I see statements like yours posted all the time and it's always very odd. How did this myth come about? Do people think there's a fixed amount of traffic and journeys won't increase if road capacity is increased? But then, if traffic jams don't suppress demand, why would people be so keen to get rid of them?

 

[BrianW]

Personally I think we should first consider electrifying Marylebone to Banbury including to Oxford via Oxford Parkway and Oxford via Kings Sutton as Stage 1 which assumes that Oxford to Didcot Parkway has already been electrified.

This would remove DMUs from operating south of Banbury with the exception of the Amersham route

I seem to recall a Chiltern manager suggesting Aylesbury be 3rd-railed and integrated with Met, thus into Baker St etc. I have no idea what that means in terms of capacity, but I can see it's worth looking at.
I also recall a photo on the wall at Marylebone heading toward Harewood Avenue (?) exit showing tunneling at Lord's and wondering whether there was (or scope for?) another tunnel to the west of existing?
Also scope for rearranging platforms, eg removing lines not at platforms, reducing width of what I guess was once a taxi/ carriage road from Rossmore Street ...? ie Victorian/ Edwardian design criteria.

Any value in disgorging passengers at a new station around Finchley Road (akin to Vauxhall, Stratford?)?

Sorry if any of this is 'old hat' to you- I'm a newbie still ...