Chiltern timetable - what if it wasn't about Brum-London?

[Bletchleyite]

The alternative of course is just do some platform extensions. The nature of the route is that you could probably blockade it completely for a week or two to get them done without much in the way of passenger disruption.

ASDO would probably do the job if we were talking new stock. Though in reality if the mainline is electrified I can't see the branch being done (there'd be too much whining from the posh locals about it being ugly) so you'd probably be left with a battery unit shuttle unless you fitted batteries in the whole fleet just for the branch.

Shame it's DOO - if it was guarded they could just do local door. Could they run it with a guard on the branch only perhaps like they did with the bubble car? That way it could be local door at the small stops.

 

[Ianno87]

Just looked, and those stations have pretty low use.

5k for Little Kimble, 25k for Monks Risborough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just looked, and those stations have pretty low use.

5k for Little Kimble, 25k for Monks Risborough.

This is no great surprise - Little Kimble is exactly what the name says it is (quaint and nice though it is), while going to London from Monks Risborough is a bit like commuting to London from Fenny Stratford - most people will just drive to the mainline station. It's a classic country "double-ended" branch line, a bit like the Marston Vale.

 

[The Planner]

What long-term freight is there? I can only think of the rubbish.

Which still needs paths, and with the rebuilt facility they will be looking for more paths as they can deal with more traffic.

Not much freight but all freight leaves the line by princes risborough. This should slot in nicely behind the xx:47. It is timed like this because the xx:05 of the following hour will catch up otherwise to the xx:47 or freight. It is also good planning to allow a gap so if things go pear shaped there is room for timetable recovery. There is also a gap as stops may be added/omitted and services correspondingly might have their departure times moved 1 or 2 minutes for this to adjust for stopping patterns. E.g peak calls at the sudburys on one service might mean pushing everything in the timetable 2 mins back to allow this to run smoothly.

Clockface timetabling just isnt a possible reality on the line, you would get severe congestion on the line. This roughly balances frequencies at intermediate stations focusing more on connectivity.


With due respect to 30907 yes you can, you path the sevices to follow each other, to go to ayelsbury, then two back to risborough. This avoids waiting double the amount of time for trains to clear the branch.

Optionally for added simplicity add the branch calls to the Ayelsbury via HW service. I only have it in as a seperate service due to bearing in mind overall unit diagrams, stations on the branch cant take more than 3 cars, and the units arent fitted with SDO

Of course clock face is possible depending on quantum of service.

Thank you HST43257 for the timings. Maybe I mayself havent been too clear, so let me try to explain more clearly.

Lets say the service from Marylebone to Ayelsbury via Hw arrives at Princes Risborough at xx:00 for simplicity.

Xx:00 ayelsbury (no stops) arrive Xx:12
Xx:05 ayelsbury (all stops) arrive xx:21

It takes in this example 21 mins for both trains to clear the line. Then repeat on the way back.

I completely agree so in this case it would elimimate the need for a shuttle completely.

To reiterate, i think the shuttle is also pointless. It would be better served adding the stops to a through service. But this would require new trains. I hope the timetable above clearly demonstrates how a reliable service would opperate.

Not quite. There are two signal sections on that line, split at Little Kimble. You cannot follow a train until the first one has passed Little Kimble.
Start to pass time from Princes Risborough to Little Kimble is 5½ and pass to stop from Little Kimble is 8, so you are arriving at Aylesbury at xx.14 with a xx.00 departure. You cannot depart to follow that train with a stopper until xx.06 which will arrive at Aylesbury at xx.22.
You are allowed a 1 minute single line reoccupation at Aylesbury so depart at xx.23, 8 minutes to Little Kimble again, so the stopper can depart at xx.31 arriving at Princes Risborough at xx.47.
Leaves no freight slots at all so in some hours you are losing trains, apart from the fact having two trains per hour within 6 or 8 minutes isn't clever.

 

[cle]

Does the timetable poster live in Thame?!

The 00 Birmingham being first stop Bicester or even Banbury enables the Oxford to be equally fast (H&T/Bicester). And then a semi to flight. Plus it is competitive for those Warwickshire places, even if the London-Birmingham market is a lessened priority.

Most of the faster High Wycombe calls are bunched too.

Oxford is a much bigger market than High Wycombe or Banbury. I think most stations below it should have access to it, hence the 3tph suggestion - which could be extending a HW terminator.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

Which still needs paths, and with the rebuilt facility they will be looking for more paths as they can deal with more traffic.

Of course clock face is possible depending on quantum of service.

Not quite. There are two signal sections on that line, split at Little Kimble. You cannot follow a train until the first one has passed Little Kimble.
Start to pass time from Princes Risborough to Little Kimble is 5½ and pass to stop from Little Kimble is 8, so you are arriving at Aylesbury at xx.14 with a xx.00 departure. You cannot depart to follow that train with a stopper until xx.06 which will arrive at Aylesbury at xx.22.
You are allowed a 1 minute single line reoccupation at Aylesbury so depart at xx.23, 8 minutes to Little Kimble again, so the stopper can depart at xx.31 arriving at Princes Risborough at xx.47.
Leaves no freight slots at all so in some hours you are losing trains, apart from the fact having two trains per hour within 6 or 8 minutes isn't clever.

Thank you for the more accurate information, i knew there werw two sections just didnt know the headways. Well the freight point is solved, the shuttle will only run peak hours and freight wont, leaving it to take its path if needed.

I should clarify my original point, A clockface timetable wont deliver optimum capactity, connectivity or necessarily best use of line capacity. Im fact i think it sacrifices most of these, therefore I should adjust my statement to say why make a bad clockface timetable when you can make a more well rounded one.

Does the timetable poster live in Thame?!

The 00 Birmingham being first stop Bicester or even Banbury enables the Oxford to be equally fast (H&T/Bicester). And then a semi to flight. Plus it is competitive for those Warwickshire places, even if the London-Birmingham market is a lessened priority.

Most of the faster High Wycombe calls are bunched too.

Oxford is a much bigger market than High Wycombe or Banbury. I think most stations below it should have access to it, hence the 3tph suggestion - which could be extending a HW terminator.

I live in a village near risborough actually! But i usually catch the train from risborough if going north or great missenden if going to London! Good guess though. Haddenham and Thame serves as a convenient railhead, and this post is designed for a post hs2 world, theres no real problem pathing a stop in there considering the catchment area it serves. With regards to oxford connectivity, I have addressed that to some degree by ensuring the second hourly oxford train allows for many more connections to be made via a change. I'd argue half hourly frequency is fine at principle stations and hourly is okay for the rest. Stops have been added at Beaconsfeild and Risborough in the first train, and connections at high wycombe considered for the 2nd service from smaller destinations

 

[Bletchleyite]

I should clarify my original point, A clockface timetable wont deliver optimum capactity, connectivity or necessarily best use of line capacity.

A clockface timetable will likely deliver the best connectivity, provided it does once an hour it will do every hour. Indeed, connectivity (planned connections) is the other, almost-as-important part of Takt. Yes, Takt sacrifices line capacity and fast "crack expresses", but it acknowledges that overall connectivity trumps all, certainly when it comes to regional services like these. (It is less pronounced when it comes to long distance services, as people tend to book these in advance, so a simplified timetable is of less importance, and it's also less pronounced when you get below hourly, but we aren't in this context).

It may not make the best use of line capacity, which is why the south WCML is not clockface in the peaks. But the other benefits of it outweigh that in most cases, certainly in cases where the lines generally aren't full, which is true of Chiltern.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

A clockface timetable will likely deliver the best connectivity, provided it does once an hour it will do every hour. Indeed, connectivity (planned connections) is the other, almost-as-important part of Takt. Yes, Takt sacrifices line capacity and fast "crack expresses", but it acknowledges that overall connectivity trumps all, certainly when it comes to regional services like these. (It is less pronounced when it comes to long distance services, as people tend to book these in advance, so a simplified timetable is of less importance, and it's also less pronounced when you get below hourly, but we aren't in this context).

It may not make the best use of line capacity, which is why the south WCML is not clockface in the peaks. But the other benefits of it outweigh that in most cases, certainly in cases where the lines generally aren't full, which is true of Chiltern.

In this case we agree, I think i was actually confusing myself. I am so used to clockface meaning multiples of 5 past the hour and equal frequencies within the clockface e.g trains must depart at xx:00 and xx:30 instead of xx:00 and xx:25. I would argue the chiltern line is pretty much full though, due to the southern portion of the line up to Neasdon. Marylebone station throat is also very busy trying to path trains in and out of the platforms.

 

[The Planner]

I will reiterate what I often do here, clockface does not have to mean "neat", if its xx07 and xx41 every hour it still counts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will reiterate what I often do here, clockface does not have to mean "neat", if its xx07 and xx41 every hour it still counts.

Agreed, clockface just means "the same minutes past each hour".

Edit: or even less than an hour, you can have a 2 hourly clockface pattern if you want, though it's not as advantageous in most cases. The point is the repeating pattern.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

I will reiterate what I often do here, clockface does not have to mean "neat", if its xx07 and xx41 every hour it still counts.

Agreed

 

[Ianno87]

In this case we agree, I think i was actually confusing myself. I am so used to clockface meaning multiples of 5 past the hour and equal frequencies within the clockface e.g trains must depart at xx:00 and xx:30 instead of xx:00 and xx:25. I would argue the chiltern line is pretty much full though, due to the southern portion of the line up to Neasdon. Marylebone station throat is also very busy trying to path trains in and out of the platforms.

I will reiterate what I often do here, clockface does not have to mean "neat", if its xx07 and xx41 every hour it still counts.

Agreed, clockface just means "the same minutes past each hour".

Edit: or even less than an hour, you can have a 2 hourly clockface pattern if you want, though it's not as advantageous in most cases. The point is the repeating pattern.

I've heard the jargon "sexytimes" for getting times on multiples of 0 and 5...

 

[Bald Rick]

I've heard the jargon "sexytimes" for getting times on multiples of 0 and 5...

That was when Borat worked at MK?

 

[Ianno87]

That was when Borat worked at MK?

I specifically heard it post-Borat, pre-MK, which dates it suitably.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I am eagerly awaiting for someone to recommend an "S-Bahn" concept. Very popular these days.

 

[A0]

I am eagerly awaiting for someone to recommend an "S-Bahn" concept. Very popular these days.

Surely that's part of the suggestion to extend Thameslink to Corby? (Runs and hides).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Surely that's part of the suggestion to extend Thameslink to Corby? (Runs and hides).

Noted a 12 car 360 training run for the new Corby service the other day - a service capacity level unlikely to be needed for a while I suspect.

Not thinking laterally enough - have you not considered Thameslink , with those "oh so comfortable standard class seats in a 700" - to Leicester ?

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

Surely that's part of the suggestion to extend Thameslink to Corby? (Runs and hides).

Oh thats too easy. Double track the New North Mainline (or is it called north acton line these days?) All the way through to Old Oak Common, reinstate platforms at Greenford, run a crossrail serive through the core up to high wycombe instead of sending everything up GWML and heathrow

 

[HSTEd]

Oh thats too easy. Double track the New North Mainline (or is it called north acton line these days?) All the way through to Old Oak Common, reinstate platforms at Greenford, run a crossrail serive through the core up to high wycombe instead of sending everything up GWML and heathrow

I think by "sending everything up GWML and heathrow" you mean "terminate in Paddington"

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Oh thats too easy. Double track the New North Mainline (or is it called north acton line these days?) All the way through to Old Oak Common, reinstate platforms at Greenford, run a crossrail serive through the core up to high wycombe instead of sending everything up GWML and heathrow

The High Wycombe Crossrail 1 option was looked at way back in the early 1990's and discounted. As a "what if" - had it occurred , there would have been no Chiltern franchise of course.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

I think by "sending everything up GWML and heathrow" you mean "terminate in Paddington"

No, I mean what I said. Run everything through the core of crossrail and instead of westbound crossrail trains going up the gwml send them north to High Wycombe. I need more crayons to expand these 'very realistic' ideas.

 

[HST43257]

Oh thats too easy. Double track the New North Mainline (or is it called north acton line these days?) All the way through to Old Oak Common, reinstate platforms at Greenford, run a crossrail serive through the core up to high wycombe instead of sending everything up GWML and heathrow

Agreed. Send 4tph up the NNML. Add stations at Hanger Lane and/or Greenford. From there have 2tph calling at South Ruislip, Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe. The other 2tph can call at West Ruislip (not South) and all stations to Gerrards Cross. Central turnback preferable at both ’termini’. Hopefully it would work with a decent fast service timetable. Some 4 track areas may be required but not many hopefully.

 

[The Planner]

That was when Borat worked at MK?

He got promoted to a band 1 as he said "very niiiice" to every bad idea...

 

[tbtc]

I'm a little surprised how complicated people are making this (though reassured that some of the familiar buzzwords can be applied to each and every line!)

My starting point would be to stop everything at Gerrards Cross/ High Wycombe/ Haddenham & Thame Parkway - keep two per hour from London to Oxford and Birmingham but ensure that they stop at the main intermediate stations too (since there's going to be less focus on "competition" in future).

So that'd be four "relatively fast, relatively long distance" services per hour, spread to give a fifteen minute service as far as Bicester (yes, I appreciate that they serve different stations there)...

...how about another four paths per hour for other stations... two to Aylesbury (via Amersham) and the other two to at least Gerards Cross. i.e. eight per hour from Marylebone, maybe that'd be more like 4/11/4/11/4/11/4/11 splits rather than every seven or eight, but still fairly balanced throughout the hour.

The problem I have is what to do about the local stations between Gerards Cross and Aylesbury.

Either:

1. Run an hourly shuttle from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury, with the local stations between Gerards Cross and Princes Risborough dealt with by stops in the Oxford/ Birmingham services (e.g. one Birmingham service stops at Seer Green, the other Birmingham service stops at Saunderton)

...or...

2. Extend one of the Gerards Cross services to Aylesbury, but I don't know if the timings would match up with the single line section - e.g. it's roughly forty minutes from Gerards Cross to Aylesbury but then if your train is waiting around forty minutes at Aylesbury/ even if part of that time is trundling along to Aylesbury Parkway (i.e. to make the trip beyond Gerards Cross last two hours so that it fits neatly into the path of a half hourly Gerards Cross - Marylebon - Gerards Cross service) then wouldn't that mean services crossing on the single track?

The second option sounds a little messier but avoids the need for longer distance passengers (e.g. Warwick) to be waiting at smaller stations like Seer Green

(all of this is assuming that the Stratford services run to/via Oxford/ Paddington instead - I don't know how to integrate them into the Marylebone timetable without making things a bit messy/lop-sided)

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

My starting point would be to stop everything at Gerrards Cross/ High Wycombe/ Haddenham & Thame Parkway - keep two per hour from London to Oxford and Birmingham but ensure that they stop at the main intermediate stations too (since there's going to be less focus on "competition" in future).

Let me begin:

Why Gerrards Cross? It doesnt even have more passengers than the following station Beaconsfield.

Stopping most trains at High Wycombe makes sense.

Why is Haddenham and Thame Pway prioritised above larger population centres such as Biscester, Banbury, Leamington, Warrick or Solihull? Are you suggesting these not have everything stop?

1. Run an hourly shuttle from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury, with the local stations between Gerards Cross and Princes Risborough dealt with by stops in the Oxford/ Birmingham services (e.g. one Birmingham service stops at Seer Green, the other Birmingham service stops at Saunderton)

Why bother stopping a Birmingham service at these relatively poorly used stations. What are the demand for direct services. The current timetable with Wycomebe, Risborough and Banbury terminators works much better, as these provide local connections.

2. Extend one of the Gerards Cross services to Aylesbury, but I don't know if the timings would match up with the single line section - e.g. it's roughly forty minutes from Gerards Cross to Aylesbury but then if your train is waiting around forty minutes at Aylesbury/ even if part of that time is trundling along to Aylesbury Parkway (i.e. to make the trip beyond Gerards Cross last two hours so that it fits neatly into the path of a half hourly Gerards Cross - Marylebon - Gerards Cross service) then wouldn't that mean services crossing on the single track?

You lost me while explaining this. Also are you trying to say you would have services passing at Ayelsbury station? Thats the only part I think I understood.

Other points:
This 4/11 idea. Im not sure it works. In fact I am pretty sure it doesnt work at all. How many stations will the gerrards cross services stop at. Theres a time penalty for every station you stop at, so 11min - 3 minute signalling headway leaves 8 minutes. If you are reversing all the stopping services in Gerrards Cross you are having to cross the down line to the reversing siding (even though I understand GX is bi-di from the up platform) that has a time penalty too to clear the line, and check no one is on the train. Lets be generous and say thats 3 minutes. 8-3 = 5 minutes. so that basically afords you 2 station stops between marylebone and Gerrards cross, that doesnt sound like much of a stopping service to me. These are rough calculations but maybe The Planner will clarify if my back of a fag packet workings are near enough accurate.

Maybe something you could consider for your idea (although no offence your 'less complex idea' seems more complicated) could be rethinking your idea by having stopping service looped at South Ruislip and overtaken by a fast in the down direction and in the up direction the service would be looped at west Ruislip? Even then youd have long pauses in the stopping service making it very inconvenient.

Just my thoughts, if I misunderstood something I apologise.

 

[Ianno87]

Other points:
This 4/11 idea. Im not sure it works. In fact I am pretty sure it doesnt work at all. How many stations will the gerrards cross services stop at. Theres a time penalty for every station you stop at, so 11min - 3 minute signalling headway leaves 8 minutes. If you are reversing all the stopping services in Gerrards Cross you are having to cross the down line to the reversing siding (even though I understand GX is bi-di from the up platform) that has a time penalty too to clear the line, and check no one is on the train. Lets be generous and say thats 3 minutes. 8-3 = 5 minutes. so that basically afords you 2 station stops between marylebone and Gerrards cross, that doesnt sound like much of a stopping service to me. These are rough calculations but maybe The Planner will clarify if my back of a fag packet workings are near enough accurate.

You do have the loops at South/West Ruislip for a Gerrard Cross "stopper" to go inside, having called at the Sudbury stations etc.

Although the issue there's if it goes inside for a 'fast' to overtake there'll be the next 'slow' right behind, as 4tph at the "inner" stations is probably excessive, so won't want to call so many places (and will be tight behind the fast)

So that means going inside at Ruislip for two trains to pass - one fast to somewhere like High Wycombe, and then a second fasts that is non-stop to, say, Gerrards Cross.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

You do have the loops at South/West Ruislip for a Gerrard Cross "stopper" to go inside, having called at the Sudbury stations etc.

Although the issue there's if it goes inside for a 'fast' to overtake there'll be the next 'slow' right behind, as 4tph at the "inner" stations is probably excessive, so won't want to call so many places (and will be tight behind the fast)

So that means going inside at Ruislip for two trains to pass - one fast to somewhere like High Wycombe, and then a second fasts that is non-stop to, say, Gerrards Cross.

Yes i agree thats why i think the 4/11 idea is really quite unworkable, but if someone can show me how it might, id be interested in listening. See my theory is after HS2, dont expect much money for infrastructure upgrades along the line.

 

[tbtc]

Let me begin:

Why Gerrards Cross? It doesnt even have more passengers than the following station Beaconsfield

Because, on a two track railway, a train stopping at all the "local" stations is going to get caught up somewhere, so having it terminate at Gerrards Cross allows that service to be run by fast accelerating stock with a "metro" layout and keep that separate from the longer distance services - unless you are planning on running everything as all-stops, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere.

There's a siding at the north end of Gerrards Cross (AFAICR) so why not focus the stoppers as far as there (given that they'll have the subsequent ("fast") service from Marylebone on their tail after about eight stations

Why is Haddenham and Thame Pway prioritised above larger population centres such as Biscester, Banbury, Leamington, Warrick or Solihull? Are you suggesting these not have everything stop?

I was just looking at the "unique" bit of the Chiltern network at first - i.e. the stations where they have more flexibility to change things - I thought that everything did stop at Warrick/ Solihull etc though - certainly they all should in future

Why bother stopping a Birmingham service at these relatively poorly used stations. What are the demand for direct services

1. The need to compete for London - Birmingham journey times is going to be less important in future
2. By stopping Birmingham services there, you remove the need for a "local" service on the line beyond Gerrards Cross which improves reliability. One of the problems that we have on a number of sections of lines is where we are trying to find space for a stopper for the sake of a couple of local stations, which gets in the way of longer distance services - it's not about demand for services from Saunderton to Birmingham - just a way of allowing places like Saunderton to retain a service to High Wycombe/ London etc without having to run a separate train just to tick the box of serving one station

This 4/11 idea. Im not sure it works. In fact I am pretty sure it doesnt work at all

I was suggesting having four "semi fast, longer distance" services per hour roughly every fifteen minutes from London towards Bicester, with another four paths coming out of Marylebone, made up of the half hourly Aylesbury service and a half hourly stopper towards Gerrards Cross (i.e. a second "fifteen minute" service out of Marybelbone - although obviously not stopping at the same stations, given the way that the Aylesbury line diverges away to Harrow etc. A simple fifteen minute service from London towards Bicester stopping at Gerards Cross/ Beaconsfield/ High Wycombe/ Princes Risborough would be a lot better for people in the "Chiltern" area than spending so many resources running fast trains through this part of the world for the sake of competing with Avanti/ LNW. For example...

• xx:00 - Birmingham
• xx:04 - Aylesbury
• xx:15 - Oxford
• xx:19 - Gerrards Cross
• xx:30 - Birmingham
• xx:34 - Aylesbury
• xx:45 - Oxford
• xx:49 - Gerrards Cross

(etc)

I thought that if I suggested that the "slow" services ran just three minutes after the "semi fast" services then someone would say that the signalling didn't allow such tight margins, so I thought I'd go for a four minute gap in the hope it wouldn't get a sarcastic response...

How do you run a regular stopping service to the stations between Marylebone and Gerrards Cross though? You don't want them to just terminate at Gerrards Cross (preferring that they run further), but that just increases the chances of them being caught up, making the timetable less reliable - so a longer distance service gets caught up behind a stopper. Trying to timetable everything so that the "stoppers" have to wait in a loop near Ruslip adds on at least five minutes to journey times, which is very unattractive to passengers (seeing your service overtaken, finding that a journey that could be fifteen minutes long now takes over twenty minutes because you are sat in a loop waiting for the service that was behind you to overtake you and then the signal clears...).

The only other way to create more room for the "local" stations would be to run the Oxford and Birmingham services within a few minutes of each other, giving more space in the timetable for stoppers (but then this would mean a lopsided service for middle distance passengers and probably mean a disproportionate number of passengers on whichever of the two longer distance trains runs just ahead of the other one.

But then, if we can't serve the "local" stations at the London end of the route then maybe we just get rid. Infrequent services are acceptable in rural areas but pretty pointless within the M25 - either come up with a timetable that gives places at the London end of the route at least a half hourly service or look at closing them down (and force people onto the Underground) - either make it fit for purpose of get rid.

 

[HST43257]

Right what about this:

Express
- 1tph Marylebone to Oxford calling at Haddenham, Bicester, Islip, Ox P’way and Oxford
- 1tph Marylebone to Birmingham calling at Wycombe, Banbury, Leamington, Warwick P’way, Dorridge, Solihull, Moor Street and Snow Hill
- 1tph Marylebone to Oxford calling at Wycombe, Bicester, Ox P’way and Oxford
- 1tph Marylebone to Stratford calling at Bicester, Banbury, Leamington, Warwick, Warwick P’way and all stations to Stratford

Metro
- 2tph Marylebone to West Ruislip calling at all stations, perhaps extending to Gerrards Cross all stations
- 2tph Crossrail to High Wycombe calling at Old Oak Common, Hanger Lane, Greenford, South Ruislip, Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe
- 2tph Marylebone to Banbury calling at Wembley Stadium and Denham then all stations to Banbury
- 2tph Crossrail to Gerrards Cross calling at Old Oak Common, Hanger Lane, Greenford and West Ruislip then all stations to Gerrards Cross


Express services would depart Marylebone at xx00, xx03, xx30 and xx33 (adjusted together according to the wider network). Hopefully not too much 4 track needed for the metro services. Perhaps from South Ruislip to Denham Golf Club

Double track could be in order for the Monks Risborough route. I’d look at 2tph going OOC, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury, Aylesbury Vale Parkway and then onto East West Rail if paths allow on the Chiltern main line

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

Because, on a two track railway, a train stopping at all the "local" stations is going to get caught up somewhere, so having it terminate at Gerrards Cross allows that service to be run by fast accelerating stock with a "metro" layout and keep that separate from the longer distance services - unless you are planning on running everything as all-stops, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere.

There's a siding at the north end of Gerrards Cross (AFAICR) so why not focus the stoppers as far as there (given that they'll have the subsequent ("fast") service from Marylebone on their tail after about eight stations



I was just looking at the "unique" bit of the Chiltern network at first - i.e. the stations where they have more flexibility to change things - I thought that everything did stop at Warrick/ Solihull etc though - certainly they all should in future



1. The need to compete for London - Birmingham journey times is going to be less important in future
2. By stopping Birmingham services there, you remove the need for a "local" service on the line beyond Gerrards Cross which improves reliability. One of the problems that we have on a number of sections of lines is where we are trying to find space for a stopper for the sake of a couple of local stations, which gets in the way of longer distance services - it's not about demand for services from Saunderton to Birmingham - just a way of allowing places like Saunderton to retain a service to High Wycombe/ London etc without having to run a separate train just to tick the box of serving one station



I was suggesting having four "semi fast, longer distance" services per hour roughly every fifteen minutes from London towards Bicester, with another four paths coming out of Marylebone, made up of the half hourly Aylesbury service and a half hourly stopper towards Gerrards Cross (i.e. a second "fifteen minute" service out of Marybelbone - although obviously not stopping at the same stations, given the way that the Aylesbury line diverges away to Harrow etc. A simple fifteen minute service from London towards Bicester stopping at Gerards Cross/ Beaconsfield/ High Wycombe/ Princes Risborough would be a lot better for people in the "Chiltern" area than spending so many resources running fast trains through this part of the world for the sake of competing with Avanti/ LNW. For example...

• xx:00 - Birmingham
• xx:04 - Aylesbury
• xx:15 - Oxford
• xx:19 - Gerrards Cross
• xx:30 - Birmingham
• xx:34 - Aylesbury
• xx:45 - Oxford
• xx:49 - Gerrards Cross

(etc)

I thought that if I suggested that the "slow" services ran just three minutes after the "semi fast" services then someone would say that the signalling didn't allow such tight margins, so I thought I'd go for a four minute gap in the hope it wouldn't get a sarcastic response...

How do you run a regular stopping service to the stations between Marylebone and Gerrards Cross though? You don't want them to just terminate at Gerrards Cross (preferring that they run further), but that just increases the chances of them being caught up, making the timetable less reliable - so a longer distance service gets caught up behind a stopper. Trying to timetable everything so that the "stoppers" have to wait in a loop near Ruslip adds on at least five minutes to journey times, which is very unattractive to passengers (seeing your service overtaken, finding that a journey that could be fifteen minutes long now takes over twenty minutes because you are sat in a loop waiting for the service that was behind you to overtake you and then the signal clears...).

The only other way to create more room for the "local" stations would be to run the Oxford and Birmingham services within a few minutes of each other, giving more space in the timetable for stoppers (but then this would mean a lopsided service for middle distance passengers and probably mean a disproportionate number of passengers on whichever of the two longer distance trains runs just ahead of the other one.

But then, if we can't serve the "local" stations at the London end of the route then maybe we just get rid. Infrequent services are acceptable in rural areas but pretty pointless within the M25 - either come up with a timetable that gives places at the London end of the route at least a half hourly service or look at closing them down (and force people onto the Underground) - either make it fit for purpose of get rid.

Please dont take it personally, i honestly didn't mean to offend you, just if you put timings in then i take it on what you said. What you said mathematically didnt work. We clearly have differing opinions, thats okay im sure theres no right answer. In fact I'm pretty sure if we looked just did some minor tweeks to an older timetable it would be better.

Right what about this:

Express
- 1tph Marylebone to Oxford calling at Haddenham, Bicester, Islip, Ox P’way and Oxford
- 1tph Marylebone to Birmingham calling at Wycombe, Banbury, Leamington, Warwick P’way, Dorridge, Solihull, Moor Street and Snow Hill
- 1tph Marylebone to Oxford calling at Wycombe, Bicester, Ox P’way and Oxford
- 1tph Marylebone to Stratford calling at Bicester, Banbury, Leamington, Warwick, Warwick P’way and all stations to Stratford

Metro
- 2tph Marylebone to West Ruislip calling at all stations, perhaps extending to Gerrards Cross all stations
- 2tph Crossrail to High Wycombe calling at Old Oak Common, Hanger Lane, Greenford, South Ruislip, Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe
- 2tph Marylebone to Banbury calling at Wembley Stadium and Denham then all stations to Banbury
- 2tph Crossrail to Gerrards Cross calling at Old Oak Common, Hanger Lane, Greenford and West Ruislip then all stations to Gerrards Cross


Express services would depart Marylebone at xx00, xx03, xx30 and xx33 (adjusted together according to the wider network). Hopefully not too much 4 track needed for the metro services. Perhaps from South Ruislip to Denham Golf Club

Double track could be in order for the Monks Risborough route. I’d look at 2tph going OOC, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury, Aylesbury Vale Parkway and then onto East West Rail if paths allow on the Chiltern main line

I like this, but your cheating now! You have extra tracks and I didn't! I'm going to have to go away and get nerdy now and plan something similar.