12LDA28C
Established Member
You could do anything with an unlimited supply of money. That's why threads like this one, whilst being speculative and entertaining are ultimately rather pointless.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The best way to electrify the Chiltern Network and the Snow Hill Lines
- Thread starter Trainbike46
- Start date
You could do anything with an unlimited supply of money. That's why threads like this one, whilst being speculative and entertaining are ultimately rather pointless.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
EnriqueEspaña
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 77
I do have an idea I think solves most of the issues.
Firstly, hand over the fast lines between Harrow and Moor Park to Network rail. This would provide an uninterrupted twin track from Aylesbury to Marylebone. This can be electrified 25kv. Issues with the bank between Harrow and Moor Park likely an issue due to how the Met originally widened these lines. With some stabilization, speeds could be increased fairly easily to 75mph throughout.
This does remove Rickmansworth as a stabling site for met. No worries - just hand over a couple of 100 million, divert the Met Watford branch to Watford Junction, convert Watford Met into stabling sidings replacing lost facility at Ricky. (Added bonus, may even get a future Milton Keynes to Watford Junction service using the curve at Croxley! - pie in the sky probably I know).
Chesham Branch handed over to NR with rather branch operation or direct London trains. Ricky could have platforms extended to the south by replacing bridge and extending platforms across. I don't see the need for easing the curve as most trains would stop there. Or significant work could be done to remodel and ease curve depending on finances.
I'd envisage most trains adding calls at Moor Park which isnt currently served to allow for changes to Watford.
Main difficulty is finding platform space at Marylebone, but sub surface platforms could be tunneled. There is enough space using the former trackbed assigned to the never used tunnel bore under Lords to create a ramp down for a duel level Marylebone.
As an extra bonus feature, if EWR cord to Vale Parkway should ever be built, this would provide great connectivity between old county of Middlesex and Buckinghamshire.
Voila!
Firstly, hand over the fast lines between Harrow and Moor Park to Network rail. This would provide an uninterrupted twin track from Aylesbury to Marylebone. This can be electrified 25kv. Issues with the bank between Harrow and Moor Park likely an issue due to how the Met originally widened these lines. With some stabilization, speeds could be increased fairly easily to 75mph throughout.
This does remove Rickmansworth as a stabling site for met. No worries - just hand over a couple of 100 million, divert the Met Watford branch to Watford Junction, convert Watford Met into stabling sidings replacing lost facility at Ricky. (Added bonus, may even get a future Milton Keynes to Watford Junction service using the curve at Croxley! - pie in the sky probably I know).
Chesham Branch handed over to NR with rather branch operation or direct London trains. Ricky could have platforms extended to the south by replacing bridge and extending platforms across. I don't see the need for easing the curve as most trains would stop there. Or significant work could be done to remodel and ease curve depending on finances.
I'd envisage most trains adding calls at Moor Park which isnt currently served to allow for changes to Watford.
Main difficulty is finding platform space at Marylebone, but sub surface platforms could be tunneled. There is enough space using the former trackbed assigned to the never used tunnel bore under Lords to create a ramp down for a duel level Marylebone.
As an extra bonus feature, if EWR cord to Vale Parkway should ever be built, this would provide great connectivity between old county of Middlesex and Buckinghamshire.
Voila!
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,041
The unlimited supply of money option is the one where 25kV reaches Aylesbury via Amersham!
Even the electrification of the 6km or so of route between Harrow-on-the-Hill and the Wembley Complex would probably cost more than simply moving the depot!
YOu won't get much, if any, change out of £50m for that work. Let alone the ~£150-200m for the Aylesbury to Amersham section.
The options for the Aylesbury Line are almost certainly batteries, Metropolitan line conversion or closure.
This is the speculative section - while there is a self-appointed police force, if you don't like it, you don't have to engage.
Just because they had to cost cut - because of appalling unsupportive rail attitudes in government - doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Possibly it's the only way EWR got built - fine - but doesn't make it ideal. Closing the damn thing in 3-4 years to wire it will just be annoying.
I appreciate Oxford needs the real rebuild too.
My preference is also that - Met goes to Watford Junction, at a much higher frequency (say 12tph and 12tph Uxbridge) - and Chiltern runs:
2tph Aylesbury VP (Harrow / Ricky / Amersham...)
2tph Amersham (all, inc Moor Park)
2tph Chesham (all, inc Moor Park)
+ service via Princes Risborough. And maybe Watford Junction - EWR one per hour. Or Watford takes up 2tph Chesham on Chiltern.
For passenger numbers through Chorleywood etc, an even 4tph is about right, compared to similar stations on other lines - but some peak extras would be good.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Do you have a source for that? I know electrification is expensive, but that is a lot higher than numbers I have seen elsewhere
Fully agreed here, enforcing changes will make the railway less attractive, so is best avoided
If sharing platforms/lines was necessary, it still wouldn't be a major problem, as 4th rail makes isolating the return currents of the two electrification systems much easier - same applies to if EWR makes it to Aylesbury
This is not true, you could order dual-voltage OHLE (25kV AC) and 630V DC (4th rail, +420V and -210V, giving 630V total) and retain the 4th rail system as is, rather than changing it to 4th rail
All vaguely new 3rd rail units and many ohle units (class 701, 707, 387, etc.) are in fact dual voltage units, so the extra cost can't be that major - you could even decide to simply fit the whole chiltern fleet for both systems, reducing the number of restrictions that places.
Which isn't to say that extending the met couldn't be the preferred solution, but it isn't as though the only 2 options are to either dual-electrify the shared stretch or extend the metropolitan - dual-voltage EMUs are certainly an option.
Part of the reason for starting this thread was to avoid the chiltern new fleet tender thread being filled up with (speculative) messages about electrification by providing an alternative (better) place for it. That thread has been linked back to at least twice already.
On top of, diesel is unlikely to stay around forever - Full or partial electrification is by far the most likely alternative that keeps the railway open.
I'm sure you're aware that politicians have a bit of a history of making decisions that don't necessarily make sense from a financial perspective. Deciding not to electrify EWR from the start (which was the wrong decision in my view, but that is beside the point), does not mean they won't electrify the Chiltern railway (or any other route for that matter)
They wouldn't be dumped at Marylebone. Those that need to would interchange to the Met. Easily at Harrow, mildly more fancifully at Wembley Park or Neasden, or more ideally, abet rather fancifully, at a rebuilt West Hampstead.
12LDA28C
Established Member
Indeed, which is why the Chiltern tenders have specified both battery-hybrid and low emissions units as a replacement for the 165s. It will be interesting to see which option gets taken up, dependent on DfT approval (no doubt the cheapest option?)
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,041
The recent MML projects have implied single track kilometre costs on the order of £4m.
Network Rail claims they can cut this figure, but they have claimed that before and repeatedly failed to get electrification costs under control.
So I don't think its really reasonable to cost for anything less than that.
The four rail standard differs from third rail (and 25kV for that matter) in lacking current return through the running rails, so it is something of a different challenge to the conventional third rail installations for which lots of UK experience exists.
It could certainly be done, but it would require significant development work.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Which is distinctly different from £9m per stkm from your earlier post - unless you were talking per route-km?
How is building 4th rail for use by met line trains different from building it for use by chiltern trains? in any case, between Amersham and Harrow on the Hill it is already there (though it may require power upgrades if more trains will be using it)
If you want to do that without diesel, it will require some kind of facilities to charge in the long term - partial electrification is one answer to that question
Personally I think the whole line should be electrified, but I will take partial electrification and BEMUs any day!
Halish Railway
Established Member
Personally I think that the best way to start would be to extend the Elizabeth line from Old Oak Common to High Wycombe and justify doing the rest of the Chiltern Mainline in the way that bringing the Elizabeth line to Reading helped to justify electrification of the Great Western Mainline beyond Reading.
Of course this approach requires both the rebuilding of Old Oak Common to Ruislip and electrifying Marylebone to Ruislip, but allows for a more intensive service if in the London direction fast trains from Oxford and Birmingham can catch up with the hypothetical Elizabeth line services in the Ruislip area, rather than on the approach to Marylebone.
In all honesty though, pretty much any part of the Chiltern Mainline could justify electrification, however, to realise the benefits electrification elsewhere is necessary e.g. Stratford-upon-Avon to Hatton/Tyseley, Birmingham to Worcester both ways potentially and Reading to Basingstoke.
Of course this approach requires both the rebuilding of Old Oak Common to Ruislip and electrifying Marylebone to Ruislip, but allows for a more intensive service if in the London direction fast trains from Oxford and Birmingham can catch up with the hypothetical Elizabeth line services in the Ruislip area, rather than on the approach to Marylebone.
In all honesty though, pretty much any part of the Chiltern Mainline could justify electrification, however, to realise the benefits electrification elsewhere is necessary e.g. Stratford-upon-Avon to Hatton/Tyseley, Birmingham to Worcester both ways potentially and Reading to Basingstoke.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,041
Yes, that's why the figure was 6km, not 12km!
~£4m per single track kilometre to ~£8-9km per route kilometre.
Well more that you can't just take a third rail dual voltage unit and run it on fourth rail by adding a shoe and doing nothing else.
It would require a different internal wiring arrangement, which is why the traditional way to avoid this problem is to convert the line to third rail with an earthed fourth rail instead.
As far as I know, no one has ever built a fourth rail dual voltage unit. Doing so is likely to require money to be spent on the necessary development, although it could certainly be done.
No, no, no, no and no.
TFL's land grab is bad enough already - it would saddle the people of Aylesbury with their service being at thile whim of the Mayor of London over whom they have no influence whatsoever.
TFL should not be able to take over routes running 20 miles out of London.
Another thing to consider on the 4th rail issue, and extending to Aylesbury - is the possibility of splitting the service at Baker St.
Baker St becomes a terminus for Uxbridge, Watford, Chesham and Aylesbury - and some of the S stock are re-fitted with better seating, maybe a toilet, etc etc - and maybe faster. More of a commuter network, less of a tube line, even if the tech is the same.
H&C / Circle goes up in frequency to compensate, inc Aldgate turns, but out to Barking too.
Marylebone gets platforms/paths, and gets wired. Only Aylesbury itself is something to consider
Baker St becomes a terminus for Uxbridge, Watford, Chesham and Aylesbury - and some of the S stock are re-fitted with better seating, maybe a toilet, etc etc - and maybe faster. More of a commuter network, less of a tube line, even if the tech is the same.
H&C / Circle goes up in frequency to compensate, inc Aldgate turns, but out to Barking too.
Marylebone gets platforms/paths, and gets wired. Only Aylesbury itself is something to consider
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,920
Just because electrification plans were chopped in recent years, it doesn't follow that the Chiltern Lines will never be electrified, as diesels will quickly become unacceptable in a world where even with the pushbacks, all new cars after 2035 will have to be zero emission. Plus the 2050 net zero deadline is only 26 years away.
Even if batteries are part of the solution, electrification will still have to happen for much of the network.
In terms of Aylesbury, I'm still assuming that at some point the East-West rail connection to AVP will happen at some point. It would be weird if the massively expensive Bedford to Cambridge section was actually built, but not this small connection over an existing rail corridor.
Even if batteries are part of the solution, electrification will still have to happen for much of the network.
In terms of Aylesbury, I'm still assuming that at some point the East-West rail connection to AVP will happen at some point. It would be weird if the massively expensive Bedford to Cambridge section was actually built, but not this small connection over an existing rail corridor.
12LDA28C
Established Member
The formation base is in place with rumours suggesting the connection may be installed in NR CP8. Fingers crossed.
I think they are doing the works for it - but not planning to run a service specifically. As it's useful for freight, diversions... now that line will actually go somewhere.
But they could turn it on relatively quickly. I would think something would have to run through to Northampton (maybe 1tph from Oxford) as MKC will have 2tph EWR in p2a already, by then.
But they could turn it on relatively quickly. I would think something would have to run through to Northampton (maybe 1tph from Oxford) as MKC will have 2tph EWR in p2a already, by then.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,204
CP7.
12LDA28C
Established Member
So in the next five years then?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 17,041
If the Mayor of London wants to continue receiving billions from Westminster, he will, as they say, have to play ball.
If the deal that pays TfL to take over this service gives service parameters then the Mayor will not be able to do anything.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,204
No
Thats the plan.
Tfl not wanting to pay for it was one of the reasons Crossrail to Tring died a death.
12LDA28C
Established Member
That's great news. Scheduled and budgeted for then, in the current Control Period? Plenty of people in Buckinghamshire will be pleased when that happens, especially if a train service is introduced.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Except those living in Buckingham who would probably stand to lose both their key bus routes to MK (an Aylesbury <-> MK train service would kill the X4/X6 stone dead, just as the Oxford train service is almost certain to kill the X5).
However, it is definitely welcome and could be significantly regenerative for Aylesbury to make it a viable place to live and work in MK without putting up with the terrible daily traffic congestion on the way over at peak times.
Trainbike46
Established Member
Didn't stagecoach kill the X5 already (at least the eastern end) by splitting it in Bedford?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There were a few reasons for that (including wanting more capacity on the Cambridge leg and the fact that few people travelled across Bedford anyway) but I think making it easier to withdraw the Bedford-Oxford leg when the train service starts will also be part of it.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,204
No idea of the details, but its meant to be before the end of CP7.
Railwaysceptic
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 1,433
Don't worry! TfL has no intention of going back to Aylesbury. They're interested in empire expansion only when there's big money to be captured; e.g. to Reading, Shenfield or Chingford. Off peak, Chiltern's service to Aylesbury via Amersham is a two-car train every half hour. There's no big money there.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Down to hourly for a chunk of the day now. It's not a line with much in the way of weekday leisure traffic outside of school holidays, it's mainly commuters and really quiet at other times.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Hence my comment that for Crossrail 1 , there was really too much service planned, -as well as cost !
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Unless they'd done another "Metroland" and created the demand of course!