Little used line ('New North Main Line')

Beside the London Underground Central line from West Ruislip eastwards there is a NR line which sees regular use between West and South Ruislip but seems unused in both directions from South Ruislip to London. The tracks are shiny so not unused but what services use them?

If it's the route I'm thinking of then Chiltern run occasional (daily? weekly?) services in to Paddington via this route to maintain route knowledge; it's also been used in the past when Marylebone has been closed and all services have run from Paddington.

I've edited the title so people browsing the forum know which line it refers to.

It's the New North Main Line, it was opened to supplement the existing Great Western and Great Central railways. It does not see much use these days, but is used whenever Virgin Trains or FGW are diverted via the Chilterns (for example when Reading was closed FGW ran to Bristol via Bicester, and when the WCML is closed Virgin ran to the West Midlands via Bicester). It also allows Chiltern to use Paddington if there are engineering works on the route into Marylebone.

There is a regular Chiltern passenger service working this route, timings are:

http://www.opentraintimes.com/schedule/P20158/2012/12/13http://www.opentraintimes.com/schedule/P20344/2012/12/13

It's also used between Greenford West and South Ruislip by "binliner" and spoil trains to and from Calvert, and also the occasional charter train(including steam), not to mention some Crossrail spoil trains between Greenford East and OOC.

It's also used for the turning of HSTs which somehow end up facing the wrong way at Paddington!

Is this section of line due to be closed when HS2 starts up?

NSEFAN said:

Is this section of line due to be closed when HS2 starts up?

Click to expand...

Yes, on current plans it is lost.

swt_passenger said:

Yes, on current plans it is lost.

Click to expand...

Yes...such a waste for a few extra miles of tunnel when it could be used for a Crossrail branch to relieve Marylebone.

mr_jrt said:

Yes...such a waste for a few extra miles of tunnel when it could be used for a Crossrail branch to relieve Marylebone.

Click to expand...

It could be, but there have been no plans for such a branch for a long time and i see no reason to think that will change.

What is being looked at is a line connecting Crossrail to the WCML via OOC, improving connections between the southern WCML and the GWML/Heathrow/Thames Valley etc - this would surely be a far better use of any money spent burying HS2 under the NNML.

Chris

mr_jrt said:

Yes...such a waste for a few extra miles of tunnel when it could be used for a Crossrail branch to relieve Marylebone.

Click to expand...

Do bear in mind that the lines into Paddington are very congested. This will only get worse when Crossrail begins, so I doubt that there is a good case for a frequent passenger service along the NNML.

In a way, I am happier to see the formation be used for a proper mainline service, which probably hasn't happened for quite a few years!

Chris125 said:

What is being looked at is a line connecting Crossrail to the WCML via OOC, improving connections between the southern WCML and the GWML/Heathrow/Thames Valley etc - this would surely be a far better use of any money spent burying HS2 under the NNML.

Click to expand...

Perhaps...but I strongly suspect that 3-4 miles of straight tunnel between two other bits of tunnel whilst the TBMs are already in place will be drastically cheaper and less disruptive than linking up to the WCML. I also suspect it will just waste capacity between Willesden and Euston...and reducing the suburban frequency at Euston will inconvenience a lot of suburban commuters not travelling to/from TCR, Farringdon or Canary Wharf. Not to mention in Euston the WCML has plenty of terminal capacity available for growth..the same cannot be said for Marylebone.

NSEFAN said:

Do bear in mind that the lines into Paddington are very congested. This will only get worse when Crossrail begins, so I doubt that there is a good case for a frequent passenger service along the NNML.

In a way, I am happier to see the formation be used for a proper mainline service, which probably hasn't happened for quite a few years!

Click to expand...

Are you are aware of the Westbourne Park turn back proposals? A huge number of trains are going to be turned back early, and these are the self same trains being proposed to run up the WCML. The lines into Paddington will be as busy either way.

mr_jrt said:

Not to mention in Euston the WCML has plenty of terminal capacity available for growth..the same cannot be said for Marylebone.

Click to expand...

If looked at in the context of HS2 i'm not so sure - Euston is being completely rebuilt for HS2 so if the link was constructed at the same time it could reduce the disruption and even the size of the new station.

As for Marylebone, while it's very busy i'd be very surprised if it was at capacity. Electrification, longer trains and less emphasis on London-Birmingham traffic when HS2 opens should help. Longer term, should it be necessary, some services could even be diverted down the Dudding Hill Line to OOC. While further from Central London than Marylebone the interchange with HS2, Crossrail, the GWML and HEx would be ample compensation.

Chris

Chris125 said:

If looked at in the context of HS2 i'm not so sure - Euston is being completely rebuilt for HS2 so if the link was constructed at the same time it could reduce the disruption and even the size of the new station.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure there would be much scope for reducing the size of the station...the controversial demolitions are to get straight 400m platforms, which would be required regardless. It may well be beneficial during the reconstruction, but the proposed reconstruction phasing has only one or two platforms less than Euston currently has available at all times, and Euston is very, very lax with it's platform use at present, so I think it will manage fine.

Chris125 said:

As for Marylebone, while it's very busy i'd be very surprised if it was at capacity. Electrification, longer trains and less emphasis on London-Birmingham traffic when HS2 opens should help.

Click to expand...

The problem with Marylebone is that it's platforms are effectively doubled up in number as their trains are currently so short, in fact the only platform you won't get 2 x 5-car trains onto is 4 (128m). Platforms 5 & 6 are exactly the right length (216m) for 2 x 5-car trains. If you lengthen the trains to sane levels to match demand then you're stuffed, as you'd then be running 8-car EMUs, but would need 330m platforms (2x163m + operational padding) to get two trains on a single platform (the longest platforms, 2&3 are 242m), which naturally means you've lost half your effective platforms. You wouldn't even get a single 8-car EMU into platform 4!

Chris125 said:

Longer term, should it be necessary, some services could even be diverted down the Dudding Hill Line to OOC. While further from Central London than Marylebone the interchange with HS2, Crossrail, the GWML and HEx would be ample compensation.

Click to expand...

That seems silly though? You'd be routing a non-stop service from South Ruislip to OOC via Neasden (~9miles) rather than direct (~7miles) for the sake of 3-4 miles of tunnel (and removing the need to rebuild several major road bridges)? Perhaps worth it if an massive interchange was built there to get passengers from the Met to OOC...but I suspect the Dudding Hill line would surely be better suited to a LO-style operation...?

mr_jrt said:

I'm not sure there would be much scope for reducing the size of the station...the controversial demolitions are to get straight 400m platforms, which would be required regardless.

Click to expand...

Much of the controversy is the demolitions needed for the extra width of the HS2 station, reducing the number of platforms obviously helps lessen this though in practice it's unlikely - reduced disruption however would still be valuable however.

That seems silly though? You'd be routing a non-stop service from South Ruislip to OOC via Neasden (~9miles) rather than direct (~7miles) for the sake of 3-4 miles of tunnel (and removing the need to rebuild several major road bridges)?

Click to expand...

The whole idea is that services would stop - existing stopping services, increased in frequency depending on infrastructure improvements and HS2's effect on London-Birmingham traffic via Chiltern, would use the Dudding Hill Line to terminate at OOC instead of Marylebone.

It would still require investment but no tunnelling would be required, no work needed to allow for 10 car EMU's (which would likely be overkill anyway), and crucially the benefits of a direct link to the HS2/GWML/HEx/Crossrail/NLL hub at OOC would be extended to Northolt, Sudbury, Wembley and Harlesden too.

Chris

Chris125 said:

The whole idea is that services would stop - existing stopping services, increased in frequency depending on infrastructure improvements and HS2's effect on London-Birmingham traffic via Chiltern, would use the Dudding Hill Line to terminate at OOC instead of Marylebone.

It would still require investment but no tunnelling would be required, no work needed to allow for 10 car EMU's (which would likely be overkill anyway), and crucially the benefits of a direct link to the HS2/GWML/HEx/Crossrail/NLL hub at OOC would be extended to Northolt, Sudbury, Wembley and Harlesden too.

Click to expand...

I must confess, it looks far longer on a map than it is in actuality, but it is still quite the diversion. The way I see it though is that the Chiltern Birmingham services aren't end-to-end expresses - they generally serve Birmingham to Banbury then become expresses to London. This demand isn't going to be alleviated by HS2, and it can't be by improved WCML services, so the Chiltern services will have to do so. Four tracking Northolt Junction-High Wycombe would enable a segregated Crossrail service to operate (though still feasible with two tracks and lots of loops I suspect), leaving the remaining "mainline" and outer suburban services (Oxford/Bicester/Banbury/Birmingham) free to run into Marylebone without conflict. I suspect in time though, the Oxford and Bicester services woudl end up on Crossrail, much like Reading probably will be. This could work well - the Chiltern route would be even more attractive to passengers if they still ended up at Paddington.

You also have to consider the stations on the Northolt Junction-Neasden Junction section in context - they all have terrible service and have alternatives nearby with much higher service levels, and they sit on a congested two-track line. Even rebuilding the platform loops would only get you so far - there's a decent argument for closing them. Alternatively, four-tracking the line then serving it with a branch of the Jubilee from Neasden could be possible, but it still doesn't avoid the situation they all have alternatives nearby.

...but going back to the tunnelling, the TBM is going to be tunnelling from West Ruislip station to Northolt Junction at the very least as of last January, and hopefully Ealing's pressure to get the tunnel extended will prevent HS2 cutting corners.

I just can't see how the huge cost of four tracking south of High Wycombe, perhaps £800m+ going by a report into HS2 alternatives for Seer Green-South Ruislip, would be justified. The high capacity 10-car EMU's would be both overkill and probably unpopular too given their high capacity interiors and lack of toilets; they certainly wouldn't be suitable for Bicester and Oxford services.

Of course there will still be demand for fast services after HS2 but London-Birmingham trains and journey times have been prioritised in recent years (to much criticism) so its not outlandish to think that the new line, along with electrification and higher demand from intermediate stops, should result in more emphasis on commuter and suburban services than trying to lure long distance passengers away from Virgin.

Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Chris

Chris125 said:

I just can't see how the huge cost of four tracking south of High Wycombe, perhaps £800m+ going by a report into HS2 alternatives for Seer Green-South Ruislip, would be justified. The high capacity 10-car EMU's would be both overkill and probably unpopular too given their high capacity interiors and lack of toilets; they certainly wouldn't be suitable for Bicester and Oxford services.

Click to expand...

I think that says more about the unsuitability of the planned Crossrail stock than the service patterns. I'd much prefer to see Crossrail as a E-W Thameslink service (with stock to match) rather than a super-tube, which if they insist on operating it as, should probably go no further than Slough, or maybe Windsor.

Chris125 said:

Of course there will still be demand for fast services after HS2 but London-Birmingham trains and journey times have been prioritised in recent years (to much criticism) so its not outlandish to think that the new line, along with electrification and higher demand from intermediate stops, should result in more emphasis on commuter and suburban services than trying to lure long distance passengers away from Virgin.

Click to expand...

Possibly. I think there's a lot of suppressed demand on the corridor though, certainly enough to prevent stopping services from that far out at that many stations within the M25 though. Something along the lines of 4tph to each of Oxford, Bicester and High Wycombe covers 12tph of the planned 14tph Crossrail services planned to turn back at Westbourne Park.

Chris125 said:

Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Probably, but I am enjoying the discussion. There's a lot of very knowledgeable people on this forum, and I do enjoy discussing things here

mr_jrt said:

I think that says more about the unsuitability of the planned Crossrail stock than the service patterns. I'd much prefer to see Crossrail as a E-W Thameslink service (with stock to match) rather than a super-tube, which if they insist on operating it as, should probably go no further than Slough, or maybe Windsor.

Click to expand...

If Crossrail and it's rolling stock was more like Thameslink a Chiltern branch might indeed make more sense, but it isn't and that's the reality decisions like the route of HS2 have to be based on - that said i still think a WCML branch makes more sense, with the Chiltern Mainline so much busier these days it's not the low cost option it might have once been.

...that said HS2 may end up being tunnelled for other reasons anyway. Time will tell!

Chris

Well wasn't there a serious proposal to bury the entire line within the Chiltern AONB to rip the heart out of the NIMBY case?

If so I could see it drifting towards being almost entirely tunnelled apart from the stations themselves... which would be interesting.