What to do with the Chiltern lines?

[gsc777]

So Chiltern is currently doing great, all things considered, but with the potential for nationalisation in the near future, what are people's thoughts for what should happen.

For me, a strong priority is electrification of the Marylebone—Moor Street line, which could actually have been a better investment, at least in the short term, than the London—Birmingham leg of HS2 (that money could have instead gone towards the Birmingham—Crewe and beyond, which would have been much more useful, but what do I know?). Electrifying the route to Oxford would be useful but it'll depend on what's happening with EWR. Electrifying the route to Aylesbury would be fantastic too, with the Snow Hill lines getting last priority. Seeing electrified London—Stourbridge/Kidderminster/Worcester would be great to see and a great alternative to GWR. The lines in the Midlands (to Dorridge, Stratford etc) are probably last in terms of electrification priority.

This might be a pipe dream but is there any real way to get Aylesbury onto the Thameslink line? Surely there must be space somewhere for a tunnel onto the Midland Main Line or directly into the Thameslink core. Thameslink stopping services from Aylesbury could be a game changer, with Chiltern opting to run fast London—Aylesbury services and services towards Bletchley and Milton Keynes once EWR is complete.

With EWR, do we know if there are plans solidly in place for the Aylesbury connection? If so, it would also be useful to make the lines to Parkway, and between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough, dual-tracked.

It would be cool to see Chiltern become the primary route from London into Birmingham! It could equally take pressure off LNR and Avanti services if Chiltern can match them, relieving the mess that is the WCML.

 

[Backroom_boy]

So obviously long term HS2 will be the primary route London-Birmingham; still a few years off but I don't think there is time to upgrade Chiltern in the interim so it even temporarily becomes the Premier route.

I do think there will be pressure to do something with Marylebone being the last unelectrified London terminal; whether this will be infrastructure or rolling stock led is uncertain.

Think anything with Thameslink is a non-starter. Still an ongoing debate if capacity there is already maxed out, but adding a completely new route is unlikely. (A crayonisata project would maybe to speculate on a north-west arm for the Elizabeth line?)

 

[CyrusWuff]

Electrification into Marylebone is highly unlikely due to the presence of St Johns Wood, Hampstead and South Harrow Tunnels.

Chiltern services onto Thameslink won't happen as the Chiltern tracks are too close to the Met and Jubilee ones to squeeze in a junction and dive under, plus such a link would connect to the MML fast lines, impacting headways. It would also require a new fleet fitted with CBTC kit to run through the Thameslink core.

Even post-HS2, the WCML will remain the primary classic route between London and Birmingham given it's got more capacity and a higher line speed even for non-tilt stock.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Electrification into Marylebone is highly unlikely due to the presence of St Johns Wood, Hampstead and South Harrow Tunnels.

Really low clearances?

 

[whoosh]

Electrification into Marylebone is highly unlikely due to the presence of St Johns Wood, Hampstead and South Harrow Tunnels.

Chiltern services onto Thameslink won't happen as the Chiltern tracks are too close to the Met and Jubilee ones to squeeze in a junction and dive under, plus such a link would connect to the MML fast lines, impacting headways. It would also require a new fleet fitted with CBTC kit to run through the Thameslink core.

Small correction, but it's ETCS in the Thameslink core. CBTC is in the Elizabeth Line core.
The point you are making that an 'in-cab signalling' system needs to be installed though is totally valid.

 

[The Planner]

So Chiltern is currently doing great, all things considered, but with the potential for nationalisation in the near future, what are people's thoughts for what should happen.

For me, a strong priority is electrification of the Marylebone—Moor Street line, which could actually have been a better investment, at least in the short term, than the London—Birmingham leg of HS2 (that money could have instead gone towards the Birmingham—Crewe and beyond, which would have been much more useful, but what do I know?). Electrifying the route to Oxford would be useful but it'll depend on what's happening with EWR. Electrifying the route to Aylesbury would be fantastic too, with the Snow Hill lines getting last priority. Seeing electrified London—Stourbridge/Kidderminster/Worcester would be great to see and a great alternative to GWR. The lines in the Midlands (to Dorridge, Stratford etc) are probably last in terms of electrification priority.

Electrifying the Chilterns doesn't create vast swathes of capacity, either on the Chilterns and definitely not on the WCML. Not sure why Aylesbury is more of a priority considering the amount of DMUs using the Snow Hills. It would be the other way around, Aylesbury would likely be last.

This might be a pipe dream but is there any real way to get Aylesbury onto the Thameslink line? Surely there must be space somewhere for a tunnel onto the Midland Main Line or directly into the Thameslink core. Thameslink stopping services from Aylesbury could be a game changer, with Chiltern opting to run fast London—Aylesbury services and services towards Bletchley and Milton Keynes once EWR is complete.

With EWR, do we know if there are plans solidly in place for the Aylesbury connection? If so, it would also be useful to make the lines to Parkway, and between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough, dual-tracked.

Yes there are plans for the Aylesbury connection. There is no requirement for Aylesbury to Princes Risborough to be dual tracked.

It would be cool to see Chiltern become the primary route from London into Birmingham! It could equally take pressure off LNR and Avanti services if Chiltern can match them, relieving the mess that is the WCML.

Its not going to be.

 

[JonathanH]

It would be cool to see Chiltern become the primary route from London into Birmingham!

It would be much better to see Chiltern concentrate on the intermediate flows and leave London to Birmingham journeys to the WCML and HS2.

 

[moonarrow458]

Id like to see a 2tph all stations metro electric stopper to Gerrards Cross or High Wycombe with a proper 7 days a week service at the Sudburys. Id suggest that demand at Sudbury & Harrow Road in parricular but also the other inner London stations is severely surpressed due to the very poor service (London standards) that those stations recieve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Id like to see a 2tph all stations metro electric stopper to Gerrards Cross or High Wycombe with a proper 7 days a week service at the Sudburys.

To be honest I'd close the innersuburban stations. They all have good nearby options on the Tube (Northolt Park perhaps being the least close to Tube stations, but I'm sure buses could augment to take people to those, or perhaps that alone could be kept and be a stop on the Wycombe without slowing things down too much), and are disruptive to the core function of providing a decent outersuburban and regional service e.g. a 4tph Merseyrail style service to Wycombe that is usably quick. That type of station only works on the WCML because of the dedicated DC tracks.

Wembley Stadium is an interesting one for debate - arguably even that is more trouble than it's worth when people could just go via Baker Street and that would be much easier to manage.

As for electrifying to Marylebone, it could be done easily enough with discontinuous electrification with small batteries on the trains to keep them going through the tunnels. I think the Mayor needs to start making a big thing about not having diesel trains in London and things could move forward.

 

[Belperpete]

Wembley Stadium is an interesting one for debate - arguably even that is more trouble than it's worth when people could just go via Baker Street and that would be much easier to manage.

As for electrifying to Marylebone, it could be done easily enough with discontinuous electrification with small batteries on the trains to keep them going through the tunnels. I think the Mayor needs to start making a big thing about not having diesel trains in London and things could move forward.

Third rail would have been the obvious option, if it wasn't for the ban on new third rail. Or even fourth rail..... As you say, we can cope with gaps in the overheads these days. Bi mode trains would allow the electrification to be steadily extended.

As you say, Wembley Stadium is an interesting case. Normally very low usage, but not really up to catering for the huge crowds that events at the stadium and arena can generate either. But just far enough away from the other two stations that closing it would likely cause a fuss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As you say, Wembley Stadium is an interesting case. Normally very low usage, but not really up to catering for the huge crowds that events at the stadium and arena can generate either. But just far enough away from the other two stations that closing it would likely cause a fuss.

It would cause a certain individual on here to fuss, yes ( ), and possibly people from places like High Wycombe who would proportionally see a significant increase in journey time to Wembley. However most people don't go there often, and those from further away e.g. Birmingham would probably manage a similar end to end time by using Avanti then the Tube, so I don't think it would be that controversial.

One option would be to retain it for special event use only, a bit like the way West Midlands Trains only serve Wembley Central for specific special events. But it doesn't handle that well either, so is probably best closed.

Northolt Park is 1km from each of its nearest Tube stations so may warrant retention, but one station could probably just be served by a 4tph Wycombe EMU local service without causing huge disruption.

In the end, 1tph stopping services in a city where the Tube offers sub-10 minute frequencies really isn't providing any value compared to what else the paths could be used for.

Talking of service patterns post electrification, would a sensible option perhaps be something like this on the Chiltern mainline:
- Close all local stations between Denham and London with the exception of Northolt Park
- 4tph all stations to High Wycombe (maybe alternate Denham Golf Club and Seer Green/Jordans due to these being much quieter than the others)
- 4tph fast to High Wycombe, of which then 2 all stations* to Oxford and 2 all stations to Birmingham Moor St. These would be flighted just before the stoppers from Marylebone

For Aylesbury one would struggle to justify a significant upgrade due to low demand, but 4-5 car dual voltage plus battery units on a 2tph service dropping to hourly during the day would suit fairly well, with an interior similar to WMT's Class 730s.

* Give or take Islip, perhaps only call one of them there.

 

[ollie_hunt1660]

Id like to see a 2tph all stations metro electric stopper to Gerrards Cross or High Wycombe with a proper 7 days a week service at the Sudburys. Id suggest that demand at Sudbury & Harrow Road in parricular but also the other inner London stations is severely surpressed due to the very poor service (London standards) that those stations recieve.

Can’t quite remember where it was mentioned but Chiltern stated they want to run 4tph Marylebone-West Ruislip, I’d like to assume this would also include electrification though it probably wouldn’t and would be operated by turbos.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can’t quite remember where it was mentioned but Chiltern stated they want to run 4tph Marylebone-West Ruislip, I’d like to assume this would also include electrification though it probably wouldn’t and would be operated by turbos.

I can't see that as anything other than a massively profligate waste of paths given how close most of those stations are to the Tube which will always offer a superior service.

 

[Meerkat]

Closing Wembley Stadium would be unwise - it may not be great but it still takes a significant load off the other Wembley stations.

 

[A0]

It would be better to electrify Leamington / Stratford - Birmingham Snow Hill - Kidderminster, that would remove a huge number of DMUs from stop/ start journeys through the West Mids. Leave Chiltern as diesel for now as the impact of running 2/3 tph from London - Oxford or Birmingham as diesel is pretty negligible in the scheme of things.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Closing Wembley Stadium would be unwise - it may not be great but it still takes a significant load off the other Wembley stations.

I think it's debatable as to whether that load is significant, particularly towards London. But an option would be to retain it for special event usage only, like when WMT serve Central. To avoid it making a huge mess of the timetable as it does now, you could just take the Wycombe stopper away from Northolt Park on event days and stop that there instead, with a shuttle bus provided connecting Northolt Park to its two nearest Tube stations which are 2km apart on the same road with NP in the middle.

 

[Belperpete]

Electrification into Marylebone is highly unlikely due to the presence of St Johns Wood, Hampstead and South Harrow Tunnels.

Chiltern services onto Thameslink won't happen as the Chiltern tracks are too close to the Met and Jubilee ones to squeeze in a junction and dive under, plus such a link would connect to the MML fast lines, impacting headways. It would also require a new fleet fitted with CBTC kit to run through the Thameslink core.

Even post-HS2, the WCML will remain the primary classic route between London and Birmingham given it's got more capacity and a higher line speed even for non-tilt stock.

The Chilterns will surely need new stock if it is going to be electrified, and surely new stock should be ETCS fitted. And the Chilterns ATP is on its last legs, so is going to need replacing anyway (if it hasn't already been switched off?).

For most passengers HS2 should become the primary route to get between London and Birmingham, with WCML downgraded to the secondary. We then surely won't need Chilterns as yet another alternative. It should then concentrate on its outer suburban role.

 

[moonarrow458]

To be honest I'd close the innersuburban stations. They all have good nearby options on the Tube (Northolt Park perhaps being the least close to Tube stations, but I'm sure buses could augment to take people to those, or perhaps that alone could be kept and be a stop on the Wycombe without slowing things down too much), and are disruptive to the core function of providing a decent outersuburban and regional service e.g. a 4tph Merseyrail style service to Wycombe that is usably quick. That type of station only works on the WCML because of the dedicated DC tracks.

Northolt Park is 1km from each of its nearest Tube stations so may warrant retention, but one station could probably just be served by a 4tph Wycombe EMU local service without causing huge disruption.

In the end, 1tph stopping services in a city where the Tube offers sub-10 minute frequencies really isn't providing any value compared to what else the paths could be used for.

On a map when you look at the provision for the Sudbury area it does look good with the piccadilly line, but the reality is rather different. The journey time from Sudbury Hill to Central London is very slow on the Piccadilly Line vs the Chiltern trains to London, add to that the inherent unreliability of the Piccadilly lines Uxbridge Branch with often long 20 minute gaps even in the peaks as the heathrow branch is prioritised. Random terminations at Acton Town. And when the piccadilly trains do run through in the peaks they are often full and standing so i certainly wouldnt call the Chiltern Sudbury stations useless. The piccadilly line service through Sudbury is good on paper but the reality is rather different. However at present the Sudburys get a near useless service and as such locals dont even see it as an option. Just look at the passenger growth at Acton Mainline and Hanwell once TFL gave them a 4tph service (granted through running helped a bit there).

Sudbury Hill Harrow for example gets a 1tph at irregular times (certainly not clockface especially in the peaks, weekday only service, its neighbouring Harrow Road station suffering far worse)

Ideally you'd have a 4tph service stopping service but i accept theres capacity constraints on a busy 2 track railway hence i propose a clockface 2tph all stops inner london service 7 days a week with high acceleration EMUs. That way the additional stops at the Sudburys dont ruin the timetable, but local passengers actually get a decent service. Granted not 4tph but as i say a well advertised clockface 2tph service would imo untap a lot of the surpressed demand in the area. And yes the platforms would need to be extended but if your going to electrify the Chiltern lines you might as well run 8 car EMUs at which point its not just the Sudburys that need lengthening.

And if we're worried about paths and capacity on the busy 2 track stretch, you could 4 track Wembley Stadium to just before Northolt Park as well as Denham to just south of South Ruislip. And certainly maybe 2tph Chiltern could be diverted to Old Oak Common interchange.

 

[Kite159]

Talking of service patterns post electrification, would a sensible option perhaps be something like this on the Chiltern mainline:
- Close all local stations between Denham and London with the exception of Northolt Park
- 4tph all stations to High Wycombe (maybe alternate Denham Golf Club and Seer Green/Jordans due to these being much quieter than the others)
- 4tph fast to High Wycombe, of which then 2 all stations* to Oxford and 2 all stations to Birmingham Moor St. These would be flighted just before the stoppers from Marylebone

So someone living in Ruislip wanting to travel towards High Wycombe who currently can use either South or West Ruislip will be forced at a larger cost to use LU services to central London to jump on a Chiltern service which goes non-stop through both Ruislip stations to head towards High Wycombe & beyond?

I can see quite a few saying "bugger that, we will just drive as it's far cheaper & quicker". Especially as the Central Line does have some gaps in frequencies at the western end with trains turning back at Northolt etc.

 

[MarkyT]

The Chilterns will surely need new stock if it is going to be electrified, and surely new stock should be ETCS fitted. And the Chilterns ATP is on its last legs, so is going to need replacing anyway (if it hasn't already been switched off?).

Replacement was supposed to occur in 2023 following a programme of enhancing TPWS fitment on the line. That was a pre-COVID timescale and I have no idea how the project actually turned out. The SELCAB tech was very obsolete and spares and support were becoming impossible to obtain.

For most passengers HS2 should become the primary route to get between London and Birmingham, with WCML downgraded to the secondary. We then surely won't need Chilterns as yet another alternative. It should then concentrate on its outer suburban role.

Chiltern also serves a number of places en route that are or will not be so well served by WCML or HS2. I predict Birmingham will retain a Chiltern Railways (or it's future GBR equivalent division) service. Rather like LNR services on WCML it could continue to provide a lower cost no-frills alternative, especially concentrating on linking the the smaller intermediate places it serves to both London and Birmingham. It could gain a few more stops as attempting to compete on speed between the termini will not be sensible any more. It could definitely become a multiple-unit operation with new trains.

 

[Energy]

It should then concentrate on its outer suburban role.

It already does, since covid the fast services are gone and Chiltern's traffic is overwhelmingly not London - Birmingham.

Here are the top 15 from the ORR destination matrix for London Marylebone

	From	To	Total
1	London Marylebone	High Wycombe	629800
2	London Marylebone	Bicester Village	378130
3	London Marylebone	Beaconsfield	376190
4	London Marylebone	Gerrards Cross	361443
5	London Marylebone	Banbury	269082
6	London Marylebone	Amersham	221446
7	London Marylebone	Leamington Spa	220054
8	London Marylebone	Haddenham & Thame Parkway	214589
9	London Marylebone	Aylesbury	200784
10	London Marylebone	Oxford Parkway	194626
11	London Marylebone	Bicester North	187975
12	London Marylebone	Princes Risborough	154447
13	London Marylebone	Birmingham Moor Street	146552
14	London Marylebone	Wembley Stadium	130916
15	London Marylebone	Great Missenden	127741

High Wycombe, Bicester, Banbury and Leamington Spa all individually have more passengers than Birmingham Moor Street.

 

[Basil Jet]

Can’t quite remember where it was mentioned but Chiltern stated they want to run 4tph Marylebone-West Ruislip, I’d like to assume this would also include electrification though it probably wouldn’t and would be operated by turbos.

West Ruislip is a middle-of-nowhere station that doesn't make a lot of sense as a terminus. I'd prefer a Marylebone stopper to run to Uxbridge instead (via a new curve which would probably require one of Ruislip Rugby Club's four pitches to be rotated by 90 degrees), with fast and slow services calling at South Ruislip, and let Ruislip Gardens and West Ruislip be Central Line only. The Picc could terminate at Ruislip, making the last few stations on the Uxbridge line high platform only.

 

[MarkyT]

It already does, since covid the fast services are gone and Chiltern's traffic is overwhelmingly not London - Birmingham.

Here are the top 15 from the ORR destination matrix for London Marylebone

	From	To	Total
1	London Marylebone	High Wycombe	629800
2	London Marylebone	Bicester Village	378130
3	London Marylebone	Beaconsfield	376190
4	London Marylebone	Gerrards Cross	361443
5	London Marylebone	Banbury	269082
6	London Marylebone	Amersham	221446
7	London Marylebone	Leamington Spa	220054
8	London Marylebone	Haddenham & Thame Parkway	214589
9	London Marylebone	Aylesbury	200784
10	London Marylebone	Oxford Parkway	194626
11	London Marylebone	Bicester North	187975
12	London Marylebone	Princes Risborough	154447
13	London Marylebone	Birmingham Moor Street	146552
14	London Marylebone	Wembley Stadium	130916
15	London Marylebone	Great Missenden	127741

High Wycombe, Bicester, Banbury and Leamington Spa all individually have more passengers than Birmingham Moor Street.

Interesting. Warwick Parkway and Solihull are #16 & #17 in the list.
16, London Marylebone, Warwick Parkway, 117739
17, London Marylebone, Solihull, 102873

If you add up all the regularly served stations north of Banbury the total is 669701, just a little more than High Wycombe.

There are significant passenger numbers between Moor St and the principal stations heading south, many of whom will be using Chiltern I expect as they are the expresses.
#, From, To, TOTAL
1, Birmingham Moor Street, Solihull, 295809
2, Birmingham Moor Street, Leamington Spa, 163501
3, Birmingham Moor Street, Stourbridge Junction, 161550
4, Birmingham Moor Street, London Marylebone, 146552
5, Birmingham Moor Street, Dorridge, 136403
16, Birmingham Moor Street, Warwick, 58229
24, Birmingham Moor Street, Warwick Parkway, 34895
29, Birmingham Moor Street, Bicester North, 20677
32, Birmingham Moor Street, Banbury, 18623

The trains might as well go on to Birmingham Moor St, where there are facilities to reverse them

 

[Topological]

Chiltern makes sense as a commuter railway for both London and Birmingham using the figures quoted in this thread. The step from there to electrification is usually quite immediate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern makes sense as a commuter railway for both London and Birmingham using the figures quoted in this thread. The step from there to electrification is usually quite immediate.

That's really what it is. In essence, it's the London to Birmingham bit of WMT but without Avanti alongside (High Wycombe being the analogy to Milton Keynes though located more where Tring is in distance from London terms), and it justifies a very similar sort of service pattern.

 

[Russel]

If, for arguments sake, HS2 was to be scrapped, I could see merit in some of the suggestions here.

Electrifying Marylebone to Birmingham and with the required infrastructure improvements undertaken, a 20 minute service using something like doubled up 350's could take a lot of strain of the WCML, allowing some of the current WCML London - Birmingham paths to be freed up for other services...

All fantasy, I know, but an interesting thought!

 

[Energy]

Electrifying Marylebone to Birmingham and with the required infrastructure improvements undertaken, a 20 minute service using something like doubled up 350's could take a lot of strain of the WCML, allowing some of the current WCML London - Birmingham paths to be freed up for other services...

Not much of London - Birmingham would be freed up as Coventry and Birmingham Intl still need to be served. And extra services would likely go via Birmingham anyway as Colwich Jcn and what not would still not be sorted.

Chiltern spent years trying to compete with Virgin and was mediocrely successful at best. It's still a 100mph (or less) dual-track railway which also needs to serve Leamington Spa, Banbury etc. making very-limited-stop services difficult to path. And it ends at London Marylebone which is far less connected than the other terminals and is barely big enough.

There are significant passenger numbers between Moor St and the principal stations heading south, many of whom will be using Chiltern I expect as they are the expresses.
#, From, To, TOTAL
1, Birmingham Moor Street, Solihull, 295809
2, Birmingham Moor Street, Leamington Spa, 163501
3, Birmingham Moor Street, Stourbridge Junction, 161550
4, Birmingham Moor Street, London Marylebone, 146552
5, Birmingham Moor Street, Dorridge, 136403
16, Birmingham Moor Street, Warwick, 58229
24, Birmingham Moor Street, Warwick Parkway, 34895
29, Birmingham Moor Street, Bicester North, 20677
32, Birmingham Moor Street, Banbury, 18623

Indeed, anecdotally a lot of traffic for Chiltern and LNWR is people travelling to Birmingham. The current service pattern for Chiltern is about right IMO, assuming the trains are of a decent length.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I used the loco-hauled Chiltern service to Birmingham the other day. My Down departure was fairly empty, but I noticed all the UP trains were all full and short-formed. Whether this is a temporary post-COVID issue I don't know, but I did get the sense there was suppressed demand on the route.

I agree with the previous commenter's proposal to third rail Marylebone and the approaches and switch to overhead once cleared of the tunnels. Of course this has always been the practice for diesel locomotives entering into New York.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I used the loco-hauled Chiltern service to Birmingham the other day. My Down departure was fairly empty, but I noticed all the UP trains were all full and short-formed. Whether this is a temporary post-COVID issue I don't know, but I did get the sense there was suppressed demand on the route.

There is plenty of demand from places that aren't Moor St for direct London and Birmingham trains, particularly Birmingham. It's hardly the WCML but it's hardly quiet either.

Two decently long EMUs an hour (min 160m) would deal with it pretty well I reckon. As I said it's very similar structurally to the WMT services on the Birmingham-London route, just without Avanti being there on the other two tracks. Perhaps also (like Coventry) two more turning back towards Birmingham at Banbury to give a 4tph clockface service.

 

[A0]

I agree with the previous commenter's proposal to third rail Marylebone and the approaches and switch to overhead once cleared of the tunnels. Of course this has always been the practice for diesel locomotives entering into New York.

Given battery technology, that's a waste of time. Easier to have OHL and batteries rather than put 3rd rail down.