Why is Marlow a nightmare to electrify?

[David Goddard]

Only issue with that is you reduce the frequency to hourly, whereas currently both platforms are used in the peaks to provide a half hourly service (Maidenhead - Bourne End & Bourne End - Marlow)

Not if the trains alternated into the platform. Yes it would lengthen the connection time from the current 4 minutes to more like 10 minutes but manageable if everything else wants to be achieved. Sample as below

But it would allow the peak hour services from London using 4 cars to be extended to Marlow...

What peak hour services from London using 4 cars? Peak hour services from London on the branch ended in 2017.

Whilst I am also one of those who would like to see them return (and would have previously advocated an 8x387 with Bourne End and Henley on Thames portions splitting at Maidenhead) I know this is highly unlikely to happen so would not propose, even in this "safe space" of the speculative ideas forum.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Not if the trains alternated into the platform. Yes it would lengthen the connection time from the current 4 minutes to more like 10 minutes but manageable if everything else wants to be achieved. Sample as below

View attachment 95324


What peak hour services from London using 4 cars? Peak hour services from London on the branch ended in 2017.

Whilst I am also one of those who would like to see them return (and would have previously advocated an 8x387 with Bourne End and Henley on Thames portions splitting at Maidenhead) I know this is highly unlikely to happen so would not propose, even in this "safe space" of the speculative ideas forum.

Pretty sure there are peak hour only trains from London to Bourne End?

 

[JonathanH]

Not if the trains alternated into the platform. Yes it would lengthen the connection time from the current 4 minutes to more like 10 minutes but manageable if everything else wants to be achieved. Sample as below

That seems like a worse outcome for passengers and a load of infrastructure work just to allow different rolling stock to be used. The whole point of what happens at the moment is that it only involves a four minute connection at Bourne End. Fifteen minute connections at Bourne End aren't very attractive.

 

[David Goddard]

That seems like a worse outcome for passengers and a load of infrastructure work just to allow different rolling stock to be used. The whole point of what happens at the moment is that it only involves a four minute connection at Bourne End. Fifteen minute connections at Bourne End aren't very attractive.

Exactly my point with respect to the connection. Workable but not as customer friendly. Longer trains are not needed on the Marlow stub (and not needed to Maidenhead off peak) so no point in costly infrastructure works to enable them, which will lead to other adverse effects.. The solution needs to be a two car train as now, or other vehicle which will fit within the current 47m length of the platform at Bourne End.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The solution needs to be a two car train as now, or other vehicle which will fit within the current 47m length of the platform at Bourne End.

165s are 23m, are they not? There's more than one metre spare at Bourne End. In particular the buffer stops on the "short" platform are further from the end platform walkway than on the "long" platform.

I believe there's past evidence of a three car train of 20m coaches making it to Marlow.

 

[JonathanH]

I believe there's past evidence of a three car train of 20m coaches making it to Marlow.

That is likely to be before there were buffer stops on the Marlow platform as depicted on this page. http://www.mdrs.org.uk/wycmaidmarlow.htm#1980s

210001 at Bourne End, 19 February 1983

DMU 210001 spent the whole day on the line in connection with a gala day held by the Marlow-Maidenhead Passengers' Association. This was the only occasion on which this unit worked on the branch - note that it was reduced to 3 cars in order to to clear the points at Bourne End and reach Marlow.

 

[Ianno87]

Not if the trains alternated into the platform. Yes it would lengthen the connection time from the current 4 minutes to more like 10 minutes but manageable if everything else wants to be achieved. Sample as below

View attachment 95324


What peak hour services from London using 4 cars? Peak hour services from London on the branch ended in 2017.

Whilst I am also one of those who would like to see them return (and would have previously advocated an 8x387 with Bourne End and Henley on Thames portions splitting at Maidenhead) I know this is highly unlikely to happen so would not propose, even in this "safe space" of the speculative ideas forum.

With connection times like that, you may as well close Bourne End-Marlow and replace it with an electric shuttle bus.

 

[HSTEd]

Are there any modern EMUs that are still primitive enough in control to allow at least one part of the unit to be shunted under it's own power, with the other half being moved with the assistance ofa nother unit?

So you could shunt a unit and out of the branch when it has to go for maintenance.

 

[David Goddard]

165s are 23m, are they not? There's more than one metre spare at Bourne End. In particular the buffer stops on the "short" platform are further from the end platform walkway than on the "long" platform.

I was basing it on the posting from the sectional appendix in post #7

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I was basing it on the posting from the sectional appendix in post #7

Against that, there are numerous pictures of 2 car 165s showing a decent amount of platform space either end of the unit.

 

[zwk500]

Against that, there are numerous pictures of 2 car 165s showing a decent amount of platform space either end of the unit.

There will probably be a requirement for standback from the signal, which itself is partway down the platform, and a requirement for standback from the buffers.

This image of a 2-car 165 shows not much room to the buffers and it being pretty much level with the door-viewing mirror, suggesting there isn't much space at all.

 

[David Goddard]

Just measured on Google Earth and Buffers to mirror is 52 metres, to signal 67 metres and the toe of the points 72 metres.
Therefore the SA measure of 47 is appropriate based on the mirror, and confirms that a 3x23m will barely fit between the points and the blocks, let alone within the part inside the signal.

 

[HSTEd]

I would imagine moving the signal would be dramatically less expensive than moving the track.

What sort of overlap would be required if the branch had ETCS?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just measured on Google Earth and Buffers to mirror is 52 metres, to signal 67 metres and the toe of the points 72 metres.
Therefore the SA measure of 47 is appropriate based on the mirror, and confirms that a 3x23m will barely fit between the points and the blocks, let alone within the part inside the signal.

Sounds like 3 x 20m would fit, though, provided it had DOO cameras, and Bombardier/Alstom/whoever-they-are-now will happily build you a 3 x 20m Aventra.

 

[Kite159]

Pretty sure there are peak hour only trains from London to Bourne End?

Those ended around the same time as the 387s replaced Turbos on the stoppers, same time I believe as the Paddington - Henley trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Sounds like 3 x 20m would fit, though, provided it had DOO cameras, and Bombardier/Alstom/whoever-they-are-now will happily build you a 3 x 20m Aventra.

Well you could clear it for a Class 377/3, fit a couple with pantographs and have one rotate from Southern to the branch as required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well you could clear it for a Class 377/3, fit a couple with pantographs and have one rotate from Southern to the branch as required.

If it was just for that branch, agreed, a single-unit microfleet wouldn't be sensible. But you could use 3 x 20m Aventras as the basis of a subfleet for the Thames Valley branches in general, then you'd need a number of them.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Sounds like 3 x 20m would fit, though, provided it had DOO cameras,

As demonstrated forty years ago by the visit of the 3 car 210. That's about as long as would fit Marlow.

 

[tbtc]

With connection times like that, you may as well close Bourne End-Marlow and replace it with an electric shuttle bus.

Best suggestion on the thread - in a sea of suggestions for specialist stock/ complicated Stourbridge-esque "solutions"/ demolishing houses worth over a million pounds each, tiny tram routes etc - you could get a guided busway built from Bourne End to Marlow so that vehicles could serve central Marlow too (half a mile away from where the trains currently terminate).

It's less than three miles between the train stations in Bourne End and Marlow, so a modern bus could zip along fairly quickly even if the busway was only single track - that seems much better use of funds than creating some bespoke units/ stand alone network etc.

There are some lines that warrant bespoke (i.e. "expensive") solutions but others where we have to wonder whether the cost of trying to solve the "problem" is worth it (setting up a stand alone tram system for the sake of a seven mile branch line seems a bit of a hammer/nut option IMHO).

However, there is a discussion in the longer term about how we deal with electrification of quieter lines, where 3x23 (or 4x20) metre trains are too long - the kind of routes that make do with a two coach DMU - when do we decide that a wider fleet of short EMUs is worthwhile (or that those routes should have a reduction in service to warrant the increased length of train that electrification generally brings). But that's another story for another day, given the way that electrification projects seem to be.

 

[Non Multi]

Another option would be to move the junction with Marlow across the river, with a new alignment on a reverse s-shaped embankment across Cock Marsh. It would cross the Thames again over a new bridge, before rejoining the existing alignment.

Pros: 4 car trains to Marlow. At least 3 level crossings removed. Moves the line away from the marina and sailing clubs. Retains the option to restore the line to Wycombe. Releases valuable land to developers.

Cons: Significant construction costs, but offset by the sale of land on the old alignment. Cock Marsh is National Trust land and is a site of special scientific interest.

 

[Bald Rick]

Another option would be to move the junction with Marlow across the river, with a new alignment on a reverse s-shaped embankment across Cock Marsh. It would cross the Thames again over a new bridge, before rejoining the existing alignment.

Pros: 4 car trains to Marlow. At least 3 level crossings removed. Moves the line away from the marina and sailing clubs. Retains the option to restore the line to Wycombe. Releases valuable land to developers.

Cons: Significant construction costs, but offset by the sale of land on the old alignment. Cock Marsh is National Trust land and is a site of special scientific interest.

I think your calendar is running a month and 3 days slow.

 

[Non Multi]

I think your calendar is running a month and 3 days slow.

At least I'm using days and months, not seasons or years.

 

[zwk500]

At least I'm using days and months, not seasons or years.

But you're not using reality. If the current setup can't be made to work, it'll be converted into a more suitable form of transport, not rebuilt and realigned. As has been mentioned upthread, an busway with electric vehicles, a la Luton-dunstable or Cambridge would give a sufficient capacity and actually serve the towns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you're not using reality. If the current setup can't be made to work, it'll be converted into a more suitable form of transport, not rebuilt and realigned. As has been mentioned upthread, an busway with electric vehicles, a la Luton-dunstable or Cambridge would give a sufficient capacity and actually serve the towns.

It does actually serve the towns.

The two Busways were in a unique position - needing something that can run on the railway but also "fan out" to other major destinations. There is absolutely no case whatsoever for converting any of the Thames Valley branches to a Busway as that requirement isn't there.

 

[zwk500]

It does actually serve the towns.

The two Busways were in a unique position - needing something that can run on the railway but also "fan out" to other major destinations. There is absolutely no case whatsoever for converting any of the Thames Valley branches to a Busway as that requirement isn't there.

The case for conversion would be if the current setup became untenable to operate. I totally agree that as it is, there's no case to spend the money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The case for conversion would be if the current setup became untenable to operate. I totally agree that as it is, there's no case to spend the money.

I am not sure it would. A cycle path might, though, plus a road bus.

 

[zwk500]

I am not sure it would. A cycle path might, though, plus a road bus.

I'm sure that argument will be had in time, although for now it's a bit off topic

 

[A0]

Maybe light rail acting as tram trains (like that one line in Sheffield that goes to Rotherham) could work, running all the way to London Paddington?

I'm not sure 2 or 3 car tram / trains with a top speed of 60mph is a particularly good use of capacity into Paddington (or any other London termini for that matter).

 

[Mark J]

The route to High Wycombe should never have been closed in the first place.

For those of us (in the Maidenhead area) wanting to get to High Wycombe by train, involves a long winded (and more expensive) journeys via Oxford, or via Paddington and Marylebone.

One suggestion I did read was rebuidling Bourne End on a bridge, so that the road immediately beyond it can be crossed (without a level crossing) on a reopened route to High Wycombe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The route to High Wycombe should never have been closed in the first place.

For those of us (in the Maidenhead area) wanting to get to High Wycombe by train, involves a long winded (and more expensive) journeys via Oxford, or via Paddington and Marylebone.

You'd not go by train. You'd combine train and bus.