Upgrading the Chiltern Line

[AlexSJW]

In Chiltern's bumph....

• Our focus now shifts to the third stage of our 2030 Vision: expanding our ability to meet growing customer demand across our network by replacing our oldest diesel trains with battery-electric trains, powered by partial electrification. This is crucial for decarbonising our network and supporting economic growth.

Chiltern Railways 2030 Vision | Chiltern Railways

www.chilternrailways.co.uk

Does anyone know, or have any idea, what sections of the Chiltern are that are to be partially electrified?

 

[swt_passenger]

In Chiltern's bumph....

Chiltern Railways 2030 Vision | Chiltern Railways

www.chilternrailways.co.uk

Does anyone know, or have any idea, what sections of the Chiltern are that are to be partially electrified?

I think EWR Oxford to Bedford is likely to be the only ‘announced’ partial electrification in Chiltern’s area.

 

[SynthD]

A little more detail in their pdf. https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/...-11/Chiltern_Railways_2030_Vision_Booklet.pdf

We are now working with the Department for Transport and Network Rail on a business case to introduce battery-electric trains, alongside the part electrification of the southern part of the Chiltern network. This would also deliver a further increase in capacity to meet the forthcoming demand from 42,000 new houses, and a growing leisure market driven by major events, theme parks and tourist visits to the network. We anticipate that our oldest (Class 165 and 168) trains could be replaced by the early 2030s if the business case is supported by Government.

(Emphasis added)

The easy bits of Princes Risborough to Marylebone? Avoid the tunnels (except the modern Gerrards Cross one), avoid south of Neasden junction

 

[JamesT]

I don't think there's been anything more announced since this was last discussed - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-railways-electrification.294127/

 

[AlexSJW]

A little more detail in their pdf. https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/...-11/Chiltern_Railways_2030_Vision_Booklet.pdf

(Emphasis added)

The easy bits of Princes Risborough to Marylebone? Avoid the tunnels (except the modern Gerrards Cross one), avoid south of Neasden junction

So looks like all the southern section, Princes Risborough to Marylebone, to be electrified. then to Birmingham. So, ''battery-electric trains does the rest? A long way on batteries alone.

 

[cle]

If Oxford-Bicester, or even Bletchley is done - that would also enabling charging. I'd expect the Cowley section too would be a long charger.

But the Birmingham services would likely exceed battery range unless there was similar done, say Solihull to Snow Hill. So maybe those will stay as the MK5/full diesel service. Which doesn't address the Marylebone noise/pollution pressure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Oxford-Bicester, or even Bletchley is done - that would also enabling charging. I'd expect the Cowley section too would be a long charger.

But the Birmingham services would likely exceed battery range unless there was similar done, say Solihull to Snow Hill. So maybe those will stay as the MK5/full diesel service. Which doesn't address the Marylebone noise/pollution pressure.

The Snow Hill Lines really need doing anyway. A diesel S-Bahn (which is what it is) really is a very silly thing indeed.

If you did Marylebone-Wycombe and the Snow Hill Lines the gap in the middle could probably be covered perfectly well using batteries. And you could cascade the 168s to Northern/EMR to see off the remaining 158s and the 172s to the Aylesbury branch (assuming the BEMUs weren't also four rail) or Northern/EMR.

 

[Zomboid]

I would expect Didcot to Bletchley to get wires as a result of EWR and finally finishing off what GWEP should have been. Which (along with whatever gets done London side of Risborough) should deal with the Oxford route.

I'd do Banbury - Leamington with one eye on future XC BEMUs and then Tyseley to Snow Hill for Birmingham end top ups and to support the local trains in the area.

 

[zwk500]

So looks like all the southern section, Princes Risborough to Marylebone, to be electrified. then to Birmingham. So, ''battery-electric trains does the rest? A long way on batteries alone.

There's far too little in that document to know anything specific.

Marylebone tunnels are specifically mentioned as a constraint though:

This technology would significantly reduce the overall cost required to decarbonise the network compared to full electrification, as it is extremely costly to electrify certain pieces of infrastructure such as the Marylebone tunnels, without severely disrupting existing journeys.

Options for feeder stations would ideally be near the 400KV network, which runs quite close to Chiltern's lines at several points between the M40 and Princes Risborough/Aylesbury.

Open Infrastructure Map

Open map of the world's electricity, telecoms, oil, and gas infrastructure, using data from OpenStreetMap.

openinframap.org

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would expect Didcot to Bletchley to get wires as a result of EWR and finally finishing off what GWEP should have been. Which (along with whatever gets done London side of Risborough) should deal with the Oxford route.

I'd do Banbury - Leamington with one eye on future XC BEMUs and then Tyseley to Snow Hill for Birmingham end top ups and to support the local trains in the area.

Oxford would certainly be of great benefit - it would free up a load of 80x for mainline service capacity and allow 12-car EMUs (350/2s anyone? ) to be used on Oxford terminators, plus the through slow service could be reinstated.

 

[JamesT]

I would expect Didcot to Bletchley to get wires as a result of EWR and finally finishing off what GWEP should have been. Which (along with whatever gets done London side of Risborough) should deal with the Oxford route.

I wouldn't. EWR have said they're doing Oxford Parkway to Bicester and Bletchley to Tempsford. The GWR head has mentioned battery units to handle Didcot to Oxford, so it doesn't sound like finishing off GWEP is any sort of priority.
I expect there will be quite a lot of work on what is the minimal amount of electrification they can get away with, to avoid having to do complicated areas such as Marylebone itself or any of the lines shared with TfL.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I expect there will be quite a lot of work on what is the minimal amount of electrification they can get away with, to avoid having to do complicated areas such as Marylebone itself or any of the lines shared with TfL.

It’s not that difficult to do the bits shared with TfL. The Marylebone tunnels may be harder but presumably you need a pretty small battery for that.

 

[zwk500]

It’s not that difficult to do the bits shared with TfL. The Marylebone tunnels may be harder but presumably you need a pretty small battery for that.

The section from West Hampstead to Harrow where the lines are adjacent but separate is awkward but not that difficult.

The section between Harrow and Amersham is more difficult. You have 4 basic options:
- Install 25KV overhead above the DC electrification. Very, very expensive as mixing AC and DC return paths causes very quick corrosion.
- Get dual-voltage third rail units and bond the LU 4th rail as is done elsewhere. Requires changes to the Met to accomodate and potentially power supply upgrades but is a prove solution and OLE/3rd Rail dual-voltage units are common enough in the UK.
- Get dual-voltage 4th rail units - least impact to LU, may still require a power supply upgrade. May cause awkwardness for the train design as TPWS, AWS, and ETCS equipment is mounted centrally under the unit where the 4th rail pickup would be (but the pickup could be moved about to clear the space).
- Use battery trains from Amersham to Harrow. Means using more charge but allows a potentially simpler 25KV AC BEMU.

Initial impression would be to wire West Hampstead - Bicester North, Neasden South Jn - Harrow, Great Missenden - Aylesbury Vale Parkway, and Bicester South Jn to Oxford. If money stretches, include Princes Risborough to Aylesbury.
______

Perhaps relevant to this discussion is this RAIL Article: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network-rail-issues-etcs-fitment-notice-for-turbostar-fleet

Which says NR have started the tender process for procuring ETCS Fitment to the Turbostar fleet, including the 168s.

Network Rail has issued a preliminary market engagement notice to fit ETCS to more than 160 Turbostar units. Worth an estimated £279.8 million, the 15-year project from February 2028 involves units operated by Chiltern Railways, CrossCountry, East Midlands Railway, Northern, ScotRail, Southern and West Midlands Railway.

They comprise more than 200 units spread across Classes 168, ‘170’, ‘171’ and ‘172’. The notice says a total of 168 owned by Porterbrook, Beacon Rail Leasing and Angel Trains will be fitted across the operators that use the units.

Interestingly, the tender says:

“The Turbostar fleet is the next priority because fitment and driver training must be completed ahead of the planned ‘signals away’ for the Grantham Infrastructure ETCS Scheme on the East Coast Main Line .”

Of course, fitting the 168s doesn't mean they're intended to stay with Chiltern that entire time. It could be to prep them for cascading to an ETCS area.

 

[cle]

The Snow Hill Lines really need doing anyway. A diesel S-Bahn (which is what it is) really is a very silly thing indeed.

So true. Imagine two lines in Birmingham - well branded and coloured - 6tph+ core on each and then a few branches. This and Cross City - people might actually feel, and behave, like they have a metro network. Then get B'ham-Wolves feeling like a similar local trunk and you cover the main interchanges.

Chiltern would probably have to truncate at Moor St. I actually think the Snow Hill lines could handle higher frequency than 6tph.

Oxford would certainly be of great benefit - it would free up a load of 80x for mainline service capacity and allow 12-car EMUs (350/2s anyone? ) to be used on Oxford terminators, plus the through slow service could be reinstated.

Insane to me that they wouldn't sort Oxford, but they can barely sort a local bus bridge.

And absolutely yes to 12 car 350s, and extras back from Didcot to Oxford - the 387s could go back to Southern, gladly.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Chiltern would probably have to truncate at Moor St. I actually think the Snow Hill lines could handle higher frequency than 6tph.

Except the Midlands Rail Hub project removes the terminal capacity for Chiltern at Moor Street, so they have to be extended to Snow Hill.

 

[cle]

Except the Midlands Rail Hub project removes the terminal capacity for Chiltern at Moor Street, so they have to be extended to Snow Hill.

I thought they still had a platform or two - but yes if Snow Hill is back to four through platforms soon enough, then the inner two could be terminating and the outers for the new s-bahn.

Didn't Midlands rail hub also have some platform 0 type set-up to the east of the through lines at Moor St?

 

[MatthewHutton]

- Install 25KV overhead above the DC electrification. Very, very expensive as mixing AC and DC return paths causes very quick corrosion.

Why would you be mixing. Don’t the 4th rail trains use the middle track as the return so it’d be separate from the AC using the running rails? Or are they just too close together?

- Get dual-voltage third rail units and bond the LU 4th rail as is done elsewhere. Requires changes to the Met to accomodate and potentially power supply upgrades but is a prove solution and OLE/3rd Rail dual-voltage units are common enough in the UK.

The met is already 750V north of Harrow on the Hill. Not sure what other change is needed other than the bonding?

 

[AlexSJW]

As this is not full electrification this should be done ASAP. It would also be test case to prove it works for other lines to adopt. The Wrexham- Birkenhead line has been mentioned or a number of years to use battery hybrids run by Merseyrail or TfW.

Manufacturers and the chemical advances in batteries may mean very little of the Chiltern or the Wrexham- Birkenhead line needs electrifying.

 

[Zomboid]

met is already 750V north of Harrow on the Hill. Not sure what other change is needed other than the bonding

The voltage might be fine, but the rectifiers and supplies that feed them might not be up to the job of supplying the Chiltern trains as well as the Underground.

 

[zwk500]

Why would you be mixing. Don’t the 4th rail trains use the middle track as the return so it’d be separate from the AC using the running rails? Or are they just too close together?

Its a better situation than 3rd rail for sure, but its still going to have issues with stray return currents.

 

[MatthewHutton]

The voltage might be fine, but the rectifiers and supplies that feed them might not be up to the job of supplying the Chiltern trains as well as the Underground.

It’s seems pretty unlikely given how much more frequent and long the tube trains are.

 

[The Planner]

So looks like all the southern section, Princes Risborough to Marylebone, to be electrified. then to Birmingham. So, ''battery-electric trains does the rest? A long way on batteries alone.

It won't even get to Risborough..

Except the Midlands Rail Hub project removes the terminal capacity for Chiltern at Moor Street, so they have to be extended to Snow Hill.

No it doesn't. They get extended as part of the fourth platform being put back and better turn back facilities as well as being the right thing to do in increasing connectivity to Snow Hill. Moor St is getting extra bays on the up.

 

[Zomboid]

It’s seems pretty unlikely given how much more frequent and long the tube trains are.

Only TfL can know that for sure. Looking at the using service doesn't tell you anything - you might think that Bournemouth to Weymouth would have plenty of capacity given the length and number of trains that go that way, but it was famously built very weak. The outer end of the met could well be at maximum capacity already and the 2 extra tph that Chiltern would run might push it over the edge.

 

[Brubulus]

In the long run (post HS2 and MRH) potentially what remains of Chiltern line long distance services to Birmingham should all run via Coventry, which then creates a clear simple pattern on the Snow Hill lines for them to be devolved and treated as a metro. Though this would require doubling Coventry-Leamington.

 

[The Planner]

In the long run (post HS2 and MRH) potentially what remains of Chiltern line long distance services to Birmingham should all run via Coventry, which then creates a clear simple pattern on the Snow Hill lines for them to be devolved and treated as a metro. Though this would require doubling Coventry-Leamington.

That's bonkers. There is no reason to make worse use of the released capacity along the Cov corridor that what this does.

 

[Instinct04]

So looks like all the southern section, Princes Risborough to Marylebone, to be electrified. then to Birmingham. So, ''battery-electric trains does the rest? A long way on batteries alone.

Would the electrification of the southern portion of the Chiltern main line allow for more metro and long distance services?

Maybe it would allow for a 2tph local services to/from Gerradds across - Marylebone?

 

[Mikey C]

Quite a lot of infrastructure needs to be installed before battery electric trains can run, so they need to start pretty quickly, or else there'll be a large fleet of new trains gathering dust in sidings, unable to be used.

I assume Marylebone itself will be wired, even if the tunnels aren't.

 

[The exile]

Quite a lot of infrastructure needs to be installed before battery electric trains can run, so they need to start pretty quickly, or else there'll be a large fleet of new trains gathering dust in sidings, unable to be used.

I assume Marylebone itself will be wired, even if the tunnels aren't.

Would certainly seem daft not to enable charging at a location where trains are going to be sitting for any length of time. With all the talk about Snow Hill lines above - what are the clearances in the Snow Hill tunnel like?

 

[150219]

With all the talk about Snow Hill lines above - what are the clearances in the Snow Hill tunnel like?

Probably no worse than any of the other tunnels between Marylebone and there. The tunnel between Snow Hill and Moor Street has however always appeared to me from the driving cab as being quite cavernous. Not sure if I have the dimensions immediately to hand however.

 

[The Planner]

Quite a lot of infrastructure needs to be installed before battery electric trains can run, so they need to start pretty quickly, or else there'll be a large fleet of new trains gathering dust in sidings, unable to be used.

I assume Marylebone itself will be wired, even if the tunnels aren't.

Not that I know of.