Chiltern electrification alternatives being studied...

[12LDA28C]

The starting timetable is for 4tph EWR out from Oxford, I thought. If not, I apologize, it does seem to move around a lot. I thought Marston could take 2tph at the beginning - with more needing the new Bedford station.

The current plan is for 2tph between Oxford and Milton Keynes at start of service with a journey time of ~45 minutes.

 

[option]

Andy Street (Birmingham Mayor) has been pushing for the electrification of Worcester - Leamington for a while now but hasn't mentioned Chiltern at all?

Andy is Mayor for the WMCA. Although Worcester, & Worcestershire aren't members, they are neighbours & WMR run a lot of trains to/through Worcester. If you're pushing a project to wire Stratford/Leamington to Kidderminster, then Worcester isn't much to add on.
Chiltern is too far out of the WMCA/TfWM remit.


Chiltern electrification would have been easier if the Snow Hill lines had been / were being done. It wouldn't have needed much at the London end to enable a fleet replacement with bi-modes.
The Cross-City line was done in 1993, so it has been 30 years since there was a major electrification project in the West Midlands.

 

[The Planner]

Andy is Mayor for the WMCA. Although Worcester, & Worcestershire aren't members, they are neighbours & WMR run a lot of trains to/through Worcester. If you're pushing a project to wire Stratford/Leamington to Kidderminster, then Worcester isn't much to add on.
Chiltern is too far out of the WMCA/TfWM remit.


Chiltern electrification would have been easier if the Snow Hill lines had been / were being done. It wouldn't have needed much at the London end to enable a fleet replacement with bi-modes.
The Cross-City line was done in 1993, so it has been 30 years since there was a major electrification project in the West Midlands.

Walsall Rugeley?

 

[option]

Walsall Rugeley?

Is 15 miles a 'major electrification project'?
Cross City is ~34 miles

 

[zwk500]

Chiltern electrification would have been easier if the Snow Hill lines had been / were being done. It wouldn't have needed much at the London end to enable a fleet replacement with bi-modes.
The Cross-City line was done in 1993, so it has been 30 years since there was a major electrification project in the West Midlands.

While I am 100% with you on the fact that the Snow Hill lines are long overdue, I've never quite got why projects should be rotated round regions within certain time frames. The Snow Hill Lines should be done because they're an urban metro commuter line, and not because it's the West Mids's turn.

 

[The Planner]

Is 15 miles a 'major electrification project'?
Cross City is ~34 miles

Define major?

 

[Vanmanyo]

Define major?

Probably something more than like 30 miles or something more important like Snow hill line or CML. No offence to the Chase line but it's not the most important or busy line in the area.

 

[The Planner]

Probably something more than like 30 miles or something more important like Snow hill line or CML. No offence to the Chase line but it's not the most important or busy line in the area.

Apart from the fact it displaced DMUs and allowed a doubling in service? Why did it get signed off if its just a backwater?

 

[Vanmanyo]

Apart from the fact it displaced DMUs and allowed a doubling in service? Why did it get signed off if its just a backwater?

would you say if they electrified the windemere line, replaced dmus and doubled the service that would be a major electrification? No i don't think so, and that line gets more passengers than any of the Chase line stations (except Walsall but that was already electrified). I think if the CML got electrified it would be a rather larger deal than the chase line.

 

[The Planner]

would you say if they electrified the windemere line, replaced dmus and doubled the service that would be a major electrification? No i don't think so, and that line gets more passengers than any of the Chase line stations (except Walsall but that was already electrified). I think if the CML got electrified it would be a rather larger deal than the chase line.

Of course it would, but the whole CML isn't getting wires anytime soon. Even the Snow Hills start getting borderline past Dorridge.

 

[Taunton]

It does seem bizarre that despite new dmus still being delivered to West Midlands and to Wales, no consideration is given to just having some more of the same as an add-on order, while great time (and consultant fees) are squandered on all sorts of implausible solutions - electrification of well over 100 miles of line which will cost a fortune we don't have and take forever; hydrogen trains which don't work; hybrid trains which nobody can work out how they might work, etc.

If the money and will is not there for electrification of Didcot to Oxford, almost within sight of one another and partly started, what chance this?

 

[12LDA28C]

If the money and will is not there for electrification of Didcot to Oxford, almost within sight of one another and partly started, what chance this?

I was under the impression that Didcot to Oxford certainly will be electrified, but after the current improvements to Oxford station have been completed like construction of Platform 5 and so on.

 

[Meerkat]

How quickly could the Aylesbury services be electrified? Might sell to politicians if you can start building now and deliver quickly.......
Would you be able to get enough batteries under a 710 to just use existing LU electrification (not sure if this would create a 4 car v 3 car dilemma)?
And if so how much work would LU need to do - are we talking about small scale stuff that they could sort in the same timescales as delivery of the trains, or is it a National Grid issue and a long wait?
Presumably you could extend the 3 or 4 rail inward as the increase in risk is limited due to the line adjoining LU 4 rail electrification already.

Similar trains with smaller batteries would match NR Southern's plan for Uxfield by the sound of it.

 

[12LDA28C]

How quickly could the Aylesbury services be electrified? Might sell to politicians if you can start building now and deliver quickly.......
Would you be able to get enough batteries under a 710 to just use existing LU electrification (not sure if this would create a 4 car v 3 car dilemma)?
And if so how much work would LU need to do - are we talking about small scale stuff that they could sort in the same timescales as delivery of the trains, or is it a National Grid issue and a long wait?
Presumably you could extend the 3 or 4 rail inward as the increase in risk is limited due to the line adjoining LU 4 rail electrification already.

Similar trains with smaller batteries would match NR Southern's plan for Uxfield by the sound of it.

I assume you mean extending the third/fourth rail north from Amersham? Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Trainbike46]

I assume you mean extending the third/fourth rail north from Amersham? Ain't gonna happen.

I believe they mean at the london end, extending the 4th rail on the section where Chiltern runs on separate tracks directly adjacent to LU tracks

 

[zwk500]

I believe they mean at the london end, extending the 4th rail on the section where Chiltern runs on separate tracks directly adjacent to LU tracks

That's not electrifying to Aylesbury though.

Most logical way to do it would be to do OLe on the Chiltern Mainline and a stretch from Prince's Risborough to Aylesbury, which then extends south towards Amersham, whith Dual Voltsge units and either a coasting transition or small bridging batteries at the boundary of the 4th rail system. Eventually the OLE could be extended to EWR if required.

 

[Trainbike46]

That's not electrifying to Aylesbury though.

Most logical way to do it would be to do OLe on the Chiltern Mainline and a stretch from Prince's Risborough to Aylesbury, which then extends south towards Amersham, whith Dual Voltsge units and either a coasting transition or small bridging batteries at the boundary of the 4th rail system. Eventually the OLE could be extended to EWR if required.

I agree that would be much more sensible. Presumably you'd also including OHLE for the marylebone-Harrow on the hill section?

 

[HSTEd]

That's not electrifying to Aylesbury though.

Most logical way to do it would be to do OLe on the Chiltern Mainline and a stretch from Prince's Risborough to Aylesbury, which then extends south towards Amersham, whith Dual Voltsge units and either a coasting transition or small bridging batteries at the boundary of the 4th rail system. Eventually the OLE could be extended to EWR if required.

THe simple way would be to bypass the ORR proscription on new Network Rail third rail installations by transferring the route to Aylesbury via Amersham to London Underground and operating it as an extension of the Metropolitan Line. Now the peak service has fallen off a bit there is room to terminate a couple of extra fast trains at Baker Street each hour.

ORR does not forbid extensions of LU 4th Rail because their operational practices are considered to mitigate the risk to the required degree.

Chiltern could continue to serve Aylesbury via Princess Risborough.

 

[Energy]

THe simple way would be to bypass the ORR proscription on new third rail installations by transferring the route to Aylesbury via Amersham to London Underground and operating it as an extension of the Metropolitan Line. Now the peak service has fallen off a bit there is room to terminate a couple of extra trains at Baker Street.

ORR does not forbid extensions of LU 4th Rail because their operational practices are considered to mitigate the risk to the required degree.

Chiltern could continue to serve Aylesbury via Princess Risborough.

Agreed, transferring to LU and extending the 4th rail would be better than messing around with nonstandard dual voltage stock.

 

[zwk500]

I agree that would be much more sensible. Presumably you'd also including OHLE for the marylebone-Harrow on the hill section?

Certainly something at the Junction, although if short jumper batteries allow the systems to be kept separate there's a lot of advantages in that.

THe simple way would be to bypass the ORR proscription on new Network Rail third rail installations by transferring the route to Aylesbury via Amersham to London Underground and operating it as an extension of the Metropolitan Line. Now the peak service has fallen off a bit there is room to terminate a couple of extra fast trains at Baker Street each hour.

ORR does not forbid extensions of LU 4th Rail because their operational practices are considered to mitigate the risk to the required degree.

Chiltern could continue to serve Aylesbury via Princess Risborough.

Simple in one way, much more difficult in others - it's a long way for LUL to operate out, and part of LUL's operational practices are having zero level crossings. How many would need to close for that? Also you'd then have a capacity crunch issue at Baker Street, or need to extend 4th rail into Marylebone. Nothing impossible but in the scheme of things keeping the Aylesbury branch within NR is the better option.

Agreed, transferring to LU and extending the 4th rail would be better than messing around with nonstandard dual voltage stock.

4th rail bonded to the running rail to allow standard 750V third rail equipped trains to operate over LUL 4-rail is standard practice on the District line's shared sections. We've had 25KV OLE/750DC Third rail dual voltage stock for multiple generations now, it's hardly non-standard. Granted the jumper batteries would be, but you could omit them and have a transition section of dual-electrified track between Neasden South Jn and Harrow-on-the-Hill and just north of Amersham if you wanted to use a more off-the-shelf unit.

 

[HSTEd]

Simple in one way, much more difficult in others - it's a long way for LUL to operate out, and part of LUL's operational practices are having zero level crossings. How many would need to close for that? Also you'd then have a capacity crunch issue at Baker Street, or need to extend 4th rail into Marylebone. Nothing impossible but in the scheme of things keeping the Aylesbury branch within NR is the better option.

National Electronic Sectional Appendix puts it at five.
Given the runaway cost increases in 25kV installations, I'm not even sure the level crossings would be more expensive!


As to Baker Street, my understanding is that only four trains per hour actually terminate at Baker Street off-peak?

Wouldn't the reduction in peak demands allow you to fit two more off peak trains into the timetable? Which is all you need to fully match the service pattern north of Amersham.

(EDIT: All 5 level crossings are foot crossings only, so would only require a footbridge to be built)

 

[Taunton]

The simple way would be to bypass the ORR proscription on new Network Rail third rail installations by transferring the route to Aylesbury via Amersham to London Underground and operating it as an extension of the Metropolitan Line.

You will be lucky. The current TfL/Mayor administration approach would really like to end the Met at Moor Park (last station in London), and leave beyond there just to whoever would take it on.

 

[HSTEd]

You will be lucky. The current TfL/Mayor administration approach would really like to end the Met at Moor Park (last station in London), and leave beyond there just to whoever would take it on.

Ultimately, if the national policy adopted is the transfer of the Aylesbury via Amersham route to London Underground, what the Mayor or TfL "want" would be sort of inconsequential.

They would whine about it for a while, then quietly accept a marginal increase in the money they receive in exchange.

 

[Basil Jet]

THe simple way would be to bypass the ORR proscription on new Network Rail third rail installations by transferring the route to Aylesbury via Amersham to London Underground and operating it as an extension of the Metropolitan Line. Now the peak service has fallen off a bit there is room to terminate a couple of extra fast trains at Baker Street each hour.

TfL don't seem to want to run any fast trains outside the peak.

 

[Wolfie]

Ultimately, if the national policy adopted is the transfer of the Aylesbury via Amersham route to London Underground, what the Mayor or TfL "want" would be sort of inconsequential.

They would whine about it for a while, then quietly accept a marginal increase in the money they receive in exchange.

Why exactly should London council tax payers get stiffed to bail out decades of Network Rail inactivity?

 

[zwk500]

Ultimately, if the national policy adopted is the transfer of the Aylesbury via Amersham route to London Underground, what the Mayor or TfL "want" would be sort of inconsequential.

They would whine about it for a while, then quietly accept a marginal increase in the money they receive in exchange.

The idea of Westminster forcing a transfer onto TfL when they've stubbornly resisted the North Kent lines and thameslink since Ken is an interesting theoretical turn of events. I don't see this government, even so desparate as it is to reduce the asset liability of the public balance sheet, giving TfL control of more services beyond the Greater London area.

 

[JonathanH]

TfL don't seem to want to run any fast trains outside the peak.

They have no reason to run fast trains outside the peak. Arguably, the interests of Londoners are best served by running services as stoppers.

 

[HSTEd]

Why exactly should London council tax payers get stiffed to bail out decades of Network Rail inactivity?

Given TfL continues to receive piles of money from the general taxpayer, I'm not sure why transferring that line to them in return for an increase in the grant is going to "stiff London Council Tax payers"?

Any more than expecting London taxpayers, in their role as UK taxpayers, to pay far more for some nominally National rail based solution.

The idea of Westminster forcing a transfer onto TfL when they've stubbornly resisted the North Kent lines and thameslink since Ken is an interesting theoretical turn of events. I don't see this government, even so desparate as it is to reduce the asset liability of the public balance sheet, giving TfL control of more services beyond the Greater London area.

Transferring a minor branch line that is largely operated by London Underground anyway is rather different to the North Kent lines and Thameslink.
And transferring NOrth Kent or Thameslink doesn't save the Treasury many many millions of pounds in capital expenditure......

 

[zwk500]

Given TfL continues to receive piles of money from the general taxpayer, ...
And transferring NOrth Kent or Thameslink doesn't save the Treasury many many millions of pounds in capital expenditure......

If TfL is still largely funded by the taxpayer, how does shifting control of the line save the Treasury from expenditure? It might be different columns but its still spending.

Also, capex is the spending the treasury prefers, because politicians get to make pithy statements about investing in infrastructure. Hence the dressing up of.engineering renewals as 'upgrades'. It's open the treasury doesn't want and as this section isn't going to cover its costs for LUL guess who's going to be giving TfL an allowance for the branch?
Also, tory MPs in the Aylesbury area quite like having Chiltern operate a DfT franchise so that they can make sure their constituency interests are representsted in the service. If the branch went to TfL they'd have significantly less ability to represent those interests.

 

[HSTEd]

If TfL is still largely funded by the taxpayer, how does shifting control of the line save the Treasury from expenditure? It might be different columns but its still spending.

Because even with five additional footbridges, it is highly likely that 4th rail electrification will come out much cheaper than a 25kV installation, given the cost of the latter continues to rise into the stratosphere (£2.5m+/stkm?).
There will also be no need to electrify the section of the line south of Harrow on the Hill since it probably wouldn't really be used in such an arrangement which saves several track kilometres.

Given the downturn in peak traffic on the sub-surface lines post coronavirus, you probably could run it, at least partially, using slack in the existing S-stock fleet.

Also, capex is the spending the treasury prefers, because politicians get to make pithy statements about investing in infrastructure. Hence the dressing up of.engineering renewals as 'upgrades'. It's open the treasury doesn't want and as this section isn't going to cover its costs for LUL guess who's going to be giving TfL an allowance for the branch?

The same people who would pay for it to stay open if it stays as it is?
Closing the line is politically impossible, the question is what option costs the treasury least.
Electrification at 25kV will cost more than conversion to London Underground.