The case for electrifying the Chiltern mainline

[Bald Rick]

To my mind a significant factor would be to reduce the number of folk who 'pile out' at Marylebone round the corner and down to the inadequate Bakerloo line (and there's no other line there), or 'hoof it' along the road to Baker Street.

But how significant? How many who is the abakerloo would use the jubilee instead? Which in any event is routinely packed from Finchley Road each morning, whereas the zbakerloo has some spare capacity and potential for additional capacity.

 

[BrianW]

It’s not just the end game, it’s how you get to it that’s important. Site compounds, logistics routes, storage yards, environmental factors, etc.
For those of us that do build things like this, the amount of land you need is way in excess of what the end result is.

It looks like quite a big car park at Homebase, and the VW and Audi car storage? I don't think this particular proposal, however much in need of working up in more detail, is 'Only Make Believe'.

 

[Bald Rick]

It looks like quite a big car park at Homebase, and the VW and Audi car storage? I don't think this particular proposal, however much in need of working up in more detail, is 'Only Make Believe'.

One of the problems with forums like this (and it’s not just a rail thing) is that a small minority of people who have rail as a hobby think that they are better qualified in some matters than those who actually do it for a job.

 

[BrianW]

But how significant? How many who is the abakerloo would use the jubilee instead? Which in any event is routinely packed from Finchley Road each morning, whereas the zbakerloo has some spare capacity and potential for additional capacity.

Of course I must bow to those with more experience, it's an idea. I recognise that the fact that things have not been done suggests there are good reasons why not. If I remember right the North London line would have closed some years ago. Now the Overground thrives. Personally I would always seek to avoid changing from one Station to another when traveling, however close by; I wouldn't have been confident my ticket was valid. Maybe Oyster has changed that- I hope so. It does seem however that the journeys people make are opened up by connectivity. I have long felt that the 'Tube Map' helped a lot in that (and incidentally may be holding folk back elsewhere- I don't know). I enjoy seeing the 'collective wisdom and experience' of Forum contributions whether supportive or questioning. I think it a shame when people's thoughts are dismissed as drivel or similar, so thank you for being gentle.

 

[Aictos]

Question if the go ahead was given to wire up Marylebone to Banbury and leaving the other routes aside for a moment, what would be the best way of going around this?

partial route blockade, total route blockade, the work to be done during engineering blockades eg weekends?

 

[The Planner]

Question if the go ahead was given to wire up Marylebone to Banbury and leaving the other routes aside for a moment, what would be the best way of going around this?

partial route blockade, total route blockade, the work to be done during engineering blockades eg weekends?

Combination of all of those, mostly weekends I would imagine, with longer blocks over bank holidays, Christmas and school holidays.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

To my mind a significant factor would be to reduce the number of folk who 'pile out' at Marylebone round the corner and down to the inadequate Bakerloo line (and there's no other line there), or 'hoof it' along the road to Baker Street.

If that's your objective, you'd be better off installing new platforms at Neasden where there's more room to play with.

 

[BrianW]

One objective anyway- looks good for that (and relatively straightforward- 'low-hanging fruit?/ a (relatively?) 'quick win'?). It could also perhaps link to IKEA, though I'm not sure how many folk would swap Bicester Village for flatpacking ; possibly linking to the fabulous Hindu Temple if a decent walking route can be found away from the awful A406 North Circular Road.

 

[mr_jrt]

Demolition would be substantial. Every property on Broadhurst Gardens parallel to the statio would have to go.

Not claiming it's a foolproof plan by any means, but I'm curious, why do you say that? If I recall correctly one of the constraints I aimed for was to leave the southernmost line as-is, so why would you need to demolish the whole street when you're not moving the railway any closer than it already is?

 

[Mikey C]

Something has to be done. A lot of extra housing is being built along the route, and the line desperately needs both more stock and faster stock to replace the short and slow 165s.

A large order for new DMUs would be politically unacceptable, not least due to the air pollution issues at either end of the route, but also would a leasing company want to finance diesels which could be in service until 2060?

 

[Energy]

Something has to be done. A lot of extra housing is being built along the route, and the line desperately needs both more stock and faster stock to replace the short and slow 165s.

A large order for new DMUs would be politically unacceptable, not least due to the air pollution issues at either end of the route, but also would a leasing company want to finance diesels which could be in service until 2060?

Agreed, I think 168s will take over 165s and new mainline stock (probably bimode AT300s, possibly bimode Aventras or bimode Flirts) will be ordered to replace the 68/mk3s and 168s

 

[Mikey C]

Agreed, I think 168s will take over 165s and new mainline stock (probably bimode AT300s, possibly bimode Aventras or bimode Flirts) will be ordered to replace the 68/mk3s and 168s

Logically it ought to be coordinated with EWR. If EWR are only going for short term leases of DMUs, that seems to imply electrification is planned, and it would be bizarre to do that line and not the Chiltern one as well, when you look at the likely numbers going from Oxford to MK or Bedford in the early years when compared to those going into London

 

[Bald Rick]

Not claiming it's a foolproof plan by any means, but I'm curious, why do you say that? If I recall correctly one of the constraints I aimed for was to leave the southernmost line as-is, so why would you need to demolish the whole street when you're not moving the railway any closer than it already is?

Well, firstly, on your map the southern most line is further south than existing.

But if it isn’t, and stays in the same place, then you still have to replace the West End Lane bridge in full to get the new tracks in their new positions. To do that it will have to be raised to get electrification clearance. To do that you need to lift the adjacent roads. And either you close the whole lot for around 18 months to two years while it’s done, or (more likely) you build a new bridge slightly off line. And then to do all of that, you need working space to move and store plant, materials, site offices etc etc.

Secondly, minimum platform width for island platforms at the vertical circulation area is 8 metres, which needs to be more if the station is likely to be busy, which this is. The size of the platforms you have isn’t wide enough. You are also rather optimistic about the track alignments, which would need to be much straighter on the Met side. That means demolishing lots of property, and it may well be cheaper to demolish those on the south side.

Thirdly, as a full station rebuild with new platforms, you will need a secondary means of escape. Given the number likely to use it, this effectively means a second footbridge and entrance at the eastern end. That, clearly, needs access to the street.

That’s just a few things off the top of my head. As I said earlier though it’s all irrelevant as it’s not going to happen.

 

[mr_jrt]

As I said earlier though it’s all irrelevant as it’s not going to happen.

Indeed. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Over the years Google's changes have changed the curvature I originally put in, so it's a bit pointier than it originally was, and as the lines are curved, that has shifted them ever so slightly, so I can see why you would think it's further south.

 

[BrianW]

Well, firstly, on your map the southern most line is further south than existing...

That’s just a few things off the top of my head. As I said earlier though it’s all irrelevant as it’s not going to happen.

Thank you Bald Rick for taking the time to explain; this helps a lot.

As a kid in West London I recall many a musing on missing connectivities- I think the Tube map helped suggest 'opportunities', eg Sudbury-ish, Kenton, Ruislip, Park Royal, Kensal cemetery (!), W.Hampstead, ... that latter seemed to offer so much. Still wondering what will materialise (if anything?) from the Old Oak-ish opportunities- probably nothing regarding Chiltern, but then who would have imagined St Pancras for Paris ...

 

[mr_jrt]

Also, thinking about it (and bringing it back on topic) presumaby any Chiltern electrification would need West End Lane raised and all the associated road works regardless?

 

[MarkyT]

For the Aylesbury line, I'd go for 4-rail electrification for all tracks parallelling the Met. I reckon there could be a good case against the extension ban, on the argument the new ground level conductors would be close to existing fully segregated dc tracks and introducing an additional high-voltage system in the vicinity would actually introduce more risks and challenges overall than the alternative method of decarbonising and local particulate and Nox emission reduction. The Marylebone approaches, largely through tunnel and also totally segregated, could be argued as a justified rational short extension of the 4 rail method to the terminus. If that was frowned on, then on-board traction batteries could cover the run into the terminus, batteries that would be required anyway and sized to cover the Aylesbury run north of Amersham, with some automatic fast charge top-up capability at the outer terminus berthing points.
For the High Wycombe line, 25kV OHLE all the way, or at least as far towards the stops as possible. It could coexist amicably with Aylesbury line 4-rail from Neasden to the terminus if so desired. If overhead conductors in the tunnels prove impossible, then on-board traction batteries could, again, be provided on the AC units, sized to cover the discontinuity, or if 4-rail was able to be provided throughout this area, then dual voltage capable traction could be used.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also, thinking about it (and bringing it back on topic) presumaby any Chiltern electrification would need West End Lane raised and all the associated road works regardless?

If on the current alignment, probably not. Because the most likely solution (in my opinion) is some form of battery hybrid. Then you don’t need to wire up through St Johns Wood Tunnel, nor Snow Hill Tunnel, nor anywhere else with tricky clearances. The wires would start immediately west of West End Lane.

Edit: (I didn’t read @MarkyT’s post before I wrote this, but see we are in agreement about traction batteries).

 

[Elecman]

If on the current alignment, probably not. Because the most likely solution (in my opinion) is some form of battery hybrid. Then you don’t need to wire up through St Johns Wood Tunnel, nor Snow Hill Tunnel, nor anywhere else with tricky clearances. The wires would start immediately west of West End Lane.

Edit: (I didn’t read @MarkyT’s post before I wrote this, but see we are in agreement about traction batteries).

And me I said the same

 

[Bald Rick]

And me I said the same

I missed that sorry. To be fair I’ve been saying it on any Chiltern electrification threads for about a year (it seems!)

 

[MarkyT]

I missed that sorry. To be fair I’ve been saying it on any Chiltern electrification threads for about a year (it seems!)

Good ideas deserve repetition, as long as they're on topic of course!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

One of the problems with forums like this (and it’s not just a rail thing) is that a small minority of people who have rail as a hobby think that they are better qualified in some matters than those who actually do it for a job.

Yep - ain’t that the truth. Hybrid with battery is what I think will happen.

 

[bussnapperwm]

If Chiltern was to be electrified, it would probably need to be done in 4 phases (with the Cotswold and Malvern lines also being included in my opinion)

1. London to Bicester/Oxford/Aylesbury
2. Bicester/Didcot - Worcester Shrub Hill/Coventry/Warwick/Stratford (allowing XC to run electric services then between Manchester and Reading with class 360s or 350/2s!)
3. Stratford/Warwick - Kidderminster/New Street (plus Camp Hill) but the question of working electric with the Midland Metro running next to the Snow Hill lines in part would complicate things slightly.
4. Hereford - Worcester SH/Bromsgrove/Kidderminster (albeit the Ledbury tunnel question remains). This would allow for wholly electric services on the GWR Hereford and WMR Hereford-New Street services

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

Totally agree with electrifying and providing better frequency services. But why would you want to make the Birmingham services faster? Remember that, barring some minor catastrophe, within the next 10 years, HS2 will be running London-OOC-Birmingham taking 45 minutes or so. At that point it becomes daft for Chiltern to carry London-Birmingham passengers. I'd have expected that you'd more sensibly be looking at having the Chiltern Birmingham services stopping at more places to provide a better service to intermediate destinations (and by implication therefore being a bit slower, although electrification could offset that). That would also fit in well with the other objectives you mention.

 

[si404]

If Chiltern was to be electrified, it would probably need to be done in 4 phases (with the Cotswold and Malvern lines also being included in my opinion)

1. London to Bicester/Oxford/Aylesbury
2. Bicester/Didcot - Worcester Shrub Hill/Coventry/Warwick/Stratford (allowing XC to run electric services then between Manchester and Reading with class 360s or 350/2s!)
3. Stratford/Warwick - Kidderminster/New Street (plus Camp Hill) but the question of working electric with the Midland Metro running next to the Snow Hill lines in part would complicate things slightly.
4. Hereford - Worcester SH/Bromsgrove/Kidderminster (albeit the Ledbury tunnel question remains). This would allow for wholly electric services on the GWR Hereford and WMR Hereford-New Street services

Not singling you out, just quoting the most recent one. Everyone who's listed phases has the less urban, and less busy, stretch of line as more important to wire than the Birmingham suburban services. My question is why?

I'd have expected that you'd more sensibly be looking at having the Chiltern Birmingham services stopping at more places to provide a better service to intermediate destinations (and by implication therefore being a bit slower, although electrification could offset that). That would also fit in well with the other objectives you mention.

You'd still need the fast service between Leamington and London / Birmingham.

Currently there's the following:
1tph London - fast - Leamington - fast - Birmingham
1tph London - fast - Leamington - semi-fast - Birmingham
1tp2h London - semi-fast - Banbury
1tp2h London - semi-fast - Stratford

I'd suggest the following would work well:
1tph London - semi-fast - Leamington - fast - Birmingham
1tph London - fast - Leamington - semi-fast - Birmingham
1tph London - fast - Leamington - Stratford

I envision that the fast service between London and Leamington would stop at both High Wycombe and Bicester North, rather than the current one or the other. Likewise, the fast service between Leamington and Birmingham might stop at Warwick as well as Parkway, and the service between Leamington and Stratford (and perhaps stopping Birmingham services too) at Parkway as well as Warwick.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Not singling you out, just quoting the most recent one. Everyone who's listed phases has the less urban, and less busy, stretch of line as more important to wire than the Birmingham suburban services. My question is why?

In my plan, whilst wiring the first two phases, it gives NR chance to work out any issues of getting AC electrics working right next to the DC OHLE electrics of the Midland Metro, whilst at the same time initially reducing some of the DMU working out of Marylebone (converting the Oxford/Bicester/Aylesbury working into electrics for phase 1, and for phase 2 getting Voyagers off MAN-Reading to allow capacity improvements on other lines)

 

[Tobbes]

If on the current alignment, probably not. Because the most likely solution (in my opinion) is some form of battery hybrid. Then you don’t need to wire up through St Johns Wood Tunnel, nor Snow Hill Tunnel, nor anywhere else with tricky clearances. The wires would start immediately west of West End Lane.

Edit: (I didn’t read @MarkyT’s post before I wrote this, but see we are in agreement about traction batteries).

Forgive the dumb question, but why are these tunnels so problematic to wire? Could it be done with a conductor bar and slab track? Designing and building a E/BMU seems like an expensive idea (let alone the costs of carting the battery pack everywhere when under the wires) for two (potentially difficult) tunnels.

 

[si404]

In my plan, whilst wiring the first two phases, it gives NR chance to work out any issues of getting AC electrics working right next to the DC OHLE electrics of the Midland Metro

But interfacing with next-door different electrification systems is seemingly not a problem with phase 1, as that isn't delayed due to this issue. Presumably as there's no specific mention of the via Amersham trains, then phase 1 would be dealing with not only adjacent tracks having different electrification, but the same tracks needing two different electrification types!

whilst at the same time initially reducing some of the DMU working out of Marylebone (converting the Oxford/Bicester/Aylesbury working into electrics for phase 1, and for phase 2 getting Voyagers off MAN-Reading to allow capacity improvements on other lines)

Using currently timetabled (non-emergency) off-peak service as a guide.

Phase 1 does really well in getting rid of DMUs from Marylebone: 70% of services would now be fully wired - and if you get to Banbury that's 75%, leaving just the 2tph to Birmingham and 0.5tph to Stratford.

Phase 2 gets just 1.5tph all-electric (assuming Reading West-Basingstoke is also electrified), but keeps the other 3tph passenger services between Banbury and Leamington as diesel/hybrid (1 Reading/Southampton - Newcastle, 2 Marylebone - Birmingham). 33% success on that line in doing what you aim to do in making routes fully electrified.

Phase 3 gets, without Phase 2, 4tph all electric, which would be 6.5tph with short extensions to Worcester and Leamington (which would probably be what happens). You'd also get the benefit of stopping services getting better electrification and improved air quality in a major city. Assuming Worcester-Leamington then through Solihull you'd have over half the services fully electrified (3.5tph vs 3tph).

This desire to get rid of DMUs is better served by doing the suburban sections than it is to do the gaps between them.

It's telling that you specifically mention that it's a priority to get rid of Voyagers on Manchester-Reading - a bit more specific than others' talk of electrifying that XC route, which seems to be the main justification for their seeing that bit as a priority over the Birmingham suburbs. The desire to shuffle off those unpleasant trains to a less major route is understandable, but what's wrong with a new fleet of (a better fit with the whole franchise) hybrid trains covering all the Intercity routes XC run and allowing a cascade of all Voyagers to other routes?

 

[Bald Rick]

Forgive the dumb question, but why are these tunnels so problematic to wire? Could it be done with a conductor bar and slab track? Designing and building a E/BMU seems like an expensive idea (let alone the costs of carting the battery pack everywhere when under the wires) for two (potentially difficult) tunnels.

The tunnels - I don’t know the detail. However I do know that conductor bar is very, very, expensive, and slab track even more so. The latter is also extremely disruptive to install - with possessions measured in weeks and months rather than hours. (I’ve been in three seperate tunnels when slab was being installed, it’s a precise business with no room for error)

Meanwhile battery hybrid EMUs are already in service elsewhere in Europe, and design for them in this country is well underway. It’s reasonable to assume that within 5 years most if not all EMUs on the market will come with a traction battery option. The cost of a traction battery for use in this circumstance is unlikely to be more than a few hundred thousand for a 4 car unit, which will be comfortably less than the infrastructure work it saves. And a traction battery has all sorts of other performance benefits, not least enabling trains to keep moving for a while when the power is off unexpectedly.

 

[bussnapperwm]

But interfacing with next-door different electrification systems is seemingly not a problem with phase 1, as that isn't delayed due to this issue. Presumably as there's no specific mention of the via Amersham trains, then phase 1 would be dealing with not only adjacent tracks having different electrification, but the same tracks needing two different electrification types!

I'd divert those services that run via the Met to Baker Street as LUL S8 services.

Using currently timetabled (non-emergency) off-peak service as a guide.

Phase 1 does really well in getting rid of DMUs from Marylebone: 70% of services would now be fully wired - and if you get to Banbury that's 75%, leaving just the 2tph to Birmingham and 0.5tph to Stratford.

Phase 2 gets just 1.5tph all-electric (assuming Reading West-Basingstoke is also electrified), but keeps the other 3tph passenger services between Banbury and Leamington as diesel/hybrid (1 Reading/Southampton - Newcastle, 2 Marylebone - Birmingham). 33% success on that line in doing what you aim to do in making routes fully electrified.

Phase 2 would cover the Cotswold Line into Worcester (with Hereford-Shrub Hill getting handed to the Turbos from/to Bristol.)

I'd realign the XC services to run MAN/Reading with one via Stoke and one via Crewe, with Newcastles being Bristol/SW. Southampton to Reading would move to GW.

Moving the XX33 to replace the xx39 at New Street would allow XC to run both via Coventry.

Phase 3 gets, without Phase 2, 4tph all electric, which would be 6.5tph with short extensions to Worcester and Leamington (which would probably be what happens). You'd also get the benefit of stopping services getting better electrification and improved air quality in a major city. Assuming Worcester-Leamington then through Solihull you'd have over half the services fully electrified (3.5tph vs 3tph).

This desire to get rid of DMUs is better served by doing the suburban sections than it is to do the gaps between them.

Warwick - Leamington would be a phase 2 job, with potentially Stratford UA - Warwick being a phase 2A, and phase 3 was to cover both approaches to Snow Hill from the east, as well as Kiddy (Worcester to Kiddy would get as part of phase 4 as part of the Cotswold services returning to Hereford, and the Cheltenhams running from Shrub Hill up to Stourbridge/a new station at Brierley Hill).

Phase 4 would also eliminate the DMU need for Bromsgrove - Hereford.

It's telling that you specifically mention that it's a priority to get rid of Voyagers on Manchester-Reading - a bit more specific than others' talk of electrifying that XC route, which seems to be the main justification for their seeing that bit as a priority over the Birmingham suburbs. The desire to shuffle off those unpleasant trains to a less major route is understandable, but what's wrong with a new fleet of (a better fit with the whole franchise) hybrid trains covering all the Intercity routes XC run and allowing a cascade of all Voyagers to other routes?

It was my thinking that the Voyagers could then run over the NE/SW route doubled up, or even replace HSTs at Scotrail!

Thinking about it, I'd introduce a fifth phase, as a sub project, which would eliminate the need for 196s at WM by wiring to Shrewsbury.

The new WM electrics could be run by brand 5 car electrics with 3+2 whereas Chiltern could do with 8/6/3 car 375s (or new build!). XC could use 350/2, 360s (or even loco hauled 442s!)