Chiltern Main Line upgrade

[Waverley125]

So the Chiltern line has been a runaway success story over the last 20 years. Now running 2tph regularly London - Birmingham, a new service to Oxford soon starting. Replacement of sprinters in Birmingham has seen better passenger flows on Stratford / Dorridge and Worcester / Kidderminster - Birmingham.

Seems it would be a good candidate for an upgrade. Aside from obvious electrification potential with the electric spine, it'd also release a large number of reasonably new DMUs in the form of the 172s and 168s.

So, electrification of Marylebone - Aylesbury, Wembley - Worcester via Birmingham, Bicester Junction - Oxford, Tyesley - Stratford & Hatton - Stratford.

Replacement of current stock with Class 90s & upgraded Mk3s, bringing all trains up to 'Mainline' standard.

Also reinstatement of 4 lines between Wembley & High Wycombe, Moor Street & Dorridge. Would allow greater stopping frequency on the LM cross-city services of up to 6tph while not conflicting with Chiltern services.

There's also the potential to reopen Calvert - Leicester via Brackley & Rugby (something Adrian Shooter said he was keen on), and Aylesbury - Banbury via Buckingham.

 

[Simon11]

It depends what you call a run away success.

Yes they have managed to invest and run huge multi-million pounds investment programs, however they're hardly making any money with passengers lower than forecast. (latest I've heard)

 

[Zoe]

Also reinstatement of 4 lines between Wembley & High Wycombe, Moor Street & Dorridge. Would allow greater stopping frequency on the LM cross-city services of up to 6tph while not conflicting with Chiltern services.

I'm not sure Wembley to High Wycombe was ever all four track. The signal box diagrams I have looked at suggest that it was not.

 

[The Planner]

Electrification is probably the best you could hope for. I wouldn't hold out for 4 tracking Tyseley - Dorridge and the rest of the re-openings are just a fantasy, though I can certainly see the merit of Banbury - Verney Jn with E-W built.

 

[30907]

I'm not sure Wembley to High Wycombe was ever all four track. The signal box diagrams I have looked at suggest that it was not.

It wasn't, except for Northolt Jn-West Ruislip. Station platforms on loops otherwise (just like the Badminton cut-off on the GW South Wales main line)

 

[swt_passenger]

There's also the potential to reopen Calvert - Leicester via Brackley & Rugby (something Adrian Shooter said he was keen on), and Aylesbury - Banbury via Buckingham.

A number of the aforementioned Chiltern projects formed part of a 'shopping list' from which a selection would be made, in discussion with DfT.

It was never intended to complete them all, and the chosen projects to meet the requirements of the full 20 year franchise term have all been either completed or just started (in the case of Bicester-Oxford).

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It would be virtually impossible to four track Marylebone to Neasden. Too many properties not owned by the railway have been built right up to the boundary. It would be prohibitively expensive to buy up all the land required. Neasden/Wembley to Wycombe is certainly possible, but is it worth it when all you are doing is running into five miles of two track railway beyond Neasden?

I'd like to see some kind of solution for conflicting movements at Gerrards Cross. A south facing bay platform on the down road would be nice, it would certainly reduce the impact the Gerrards Cross terminating service has on the longer distance trains, though I wonder if eventual electrification would allow that train to be extended to Beaconsfield or High Wycombe.

 

[mr_jrt]

It would be virtually impossible to four track Marylebone to Neasden. Too many properties not owned by the railway have been built right up to the boundary. It would be prohibitively expensive to buy up all the land required. Neasden/Wembley to Wycombe is certainly possible, but is it worth it when all you are doing is running into five miles of two track railway beyond Neasden?

I'd like to see some kind of solution for conflicting movements at Gerrards Cross. A south facing bay platform on the down road would be nice, it would certainly reduce the impact the Gerrards Cross terminating service has on the longer distance trains, though I wonder if eventual electrification would allow that train to be extended to Beaconsfield or High Wycombe.

...well, my response to that is if you ran the High Wycombe services onto Crossrail via OOC you avoid the expensive 4-tracking from Northolt Junction to Neasden/Marylebone, and could contribute that money towards fully 4-tracking to High Wycombe instead. Crossrail could have a dedicated pair of central slow lines, and Chiltern could have dedicated semi-fast 2-track railway from High Wycombe to Neasden on the outer pair. That said, you'd probably have to do a lot of station rebuilding as the stations currently have side platforms due to the loops. Might be easier to retain the recently-added Northolt junction changes and have the souther pair as the slow lines - then you just need a new island platform, and you're on the right side for the bay at High Wycombe to boot.

 

[The Planner]

Talk is that the WCML is more likely to get a Crossrail spur, depends on how far they expect to run them, Watford, Tring??

 

[59CosG95]

It would be virtually impossible to four track Marylebone to Neasden. Too many properties not owned by the railway have been built right up to the boundary. It would be prohibitively expensive to buy up all the land required. Neasden/Wembley to Wycombe is certainly possible, but is it worth it when all you are doing is running into five miles of two track railway beyond Neasden?

I'd like to see some kind of solution for conflicting movements at Gerrards Cross. A south facing bay platform on the down road would be nice, it would certainly reduce the impact the Gerrards Cross terminating service has on the longer distance trains, though I wonder if eventual electrification would allow that train to be extended to Beaconsfield or High Wycombe.

Well, if they can squeeze another platform in on the down side, kudos to them! The civils that would have to be undertaken without upsetting the local Gerrards Cross nimbys (and I know one-his garden abuts onto the top of the cutting) would be mind-boggling! Meanwhile, if they electrified the line, would it be a good home for the 91s?

 

[HowardGWR]

Electrification is probably the best you could hope for. I wouldn't hold out for 4 tracking Tyseley - Dorridge and the rest of the re-openings are just a fantasy, though I can certainly see the merit of Banbury - Verney Jn with E-W built.

I see one can just about squeeze in a north to east chord but did you mean the old line via Buckingham? What flow had you in mind?

 

[The Planner]

Banbury - Buckingham - MK would have some merit I reckon, not a brilliant journey by car.

 

[mr_jrt]

Talk is that the WCML is more likely to get a Crossrail spur, depends on how far they expect to run them, Watford, Tring??

Indeed. I don't see the point myself as the existing services are more than adequate and the money for that tunnel would pay for a lot of knitting for the Chiltern line, but I seem to be a minority.

 

[HowardGWR]

Banbury - Buckingham - MK would have some merit I reckon, not a brilliant journey by car.

What journeys are?

 

[jopsuk]

Electrification to Aylesbury will be "fun". On the assumption the mainline would be AC, the simplest scheme would have to be:

• AC wires to Northwick Park
• Moving changeover section before Harrow
• Watford DC/Richmond branch style hybrid 3rd/4th rail from Harrow to Amersham
• Changeover at Amersham

This is probably the most "doable".

An expensive alternative, that would cause much upset, would be to add an extra pair of lines into Rickmansworth. Terminate the Met there. Sever the Met's connection to the fast lines (At Harrow, Watford Triangle and Rickmansworth). Turn Amersham and Chesham over to the Chiltern operator (or possibly London Overground).

Cheap option of course would be to leave the Aylesbury service as a diesel island

 

[NickBucks]

I doubt the existence of the Chiltern franchise beyond 2021. It is too small and the opportunities for growth are limited. With the WCML and HS2 what is the future for diesel loco and very old rolling stock all the way to Birmingham ? So electrify the line from OOC to Neasden then north to High Wycome and Banbury and let this be run by FGW or their successor. Cut back the Met line to Rickmansworth and allow London Overground to run Marylebone- Aylesbury ( and also Aylesbury- Watford) and points north to meet the East-West line. As previous posters have suggested there is no way to expand Marylebone which is always going to prevent expansion from there.

 

[mr_jrt]

An expensive alternative, that would cause much upset, would be to add an extra pair of lines into Rickmansworth. Terminate the Met there. Sever the Met's connection to the fast lines (At Harrow, Watford Triangle and Rickmansworth). Turn Amersham and Chesham over to the Chiltern operator (or possibly London Overground).

Cheap option of course would be to leave the Aylesbury service as a diesel island

Why bother changing Ricky at all? Have the interchange at Moor Park and the Met has two branches - Uxbridge and Watford. Hand over the fast lines to NR and they can lengthen the stations north of Moor Park to take 8 car trains and TfL have no work to do other than perhaps lengthening Moor Park and HotH's platforms...which NR would probably have to chip into anyway. They'd then be completely segregated all the way from Marylebone to Aylesbury via Amersham, so standard OHLE should be fine.

 

[Batman]

This thread brings me back to something I thought about a while ago. What if Labour win the next election (which is looking likely) and cancel HS2 (which is a possibility), what sort of proposals could be drawn up to resurrect HS2 in watered down form?

Such plans would be bound to involve major upgrades to the Chiltern line and re-opening the Great Central line as far as Rugby with link lines to the WCML to the west of Rugby. That would at least provide a by-pass line for the WCML south of Rugby and solve the problem of WCML capacity in the medium term even if it is only a glorified classic line.

 

[The Ham]

This thread brings me back to something I thought about a while ago. What if Labour win the next election (which is looking likely) and cancel HS2 (which is a possibility), what sort of proposals could be drawn up to resurrect HS2 in watered down form?

Such plans would be bound to involve major upgrades to the Chiltern line and re-opening the Great Central line as far as Rugby with link lines to the WCML to the west of Rugby. That would at least provide a by-pass line for the WCML south of Rugby and solve the problem of WCML capacity in the medium term even if it is only a glorified classic line.

Even if Labour do win in 2015, the likely hood of HS2 being cancelled is far from certain.

By the time they come to power there is a strong possibility that passenger growth could be 5 or 6 years ahead (i.e. the numbers of passengers expected in 2020) of where the model used for predicting whether HS2 is viable. If that is the case (which is very probable, but even if it doesn't reach that level it's not going to be very far off that level) then IF Labour do cancel HS2 they run the real risk during their first term passenger numbers do hit the phase 1 opening levels. In which case they will have a lot of political explaining to do, the only way out of it would be to promise to do a lot of upgrades as well as having to look again at HS2.

In which case HS2 may be delayed by a few years.

Alternatively some of the works you suggested could still be required in the early 2020's to cope with passenger numbers until HS2 can be built.

 

[NotATrainspott]

In which case HS2 may be delayed by a few years.

This. This is all that the anti-HS2 folk are ever going to be able to manage, no matter how hard they push today. If we did the 14 years of weekend closures option, we would still end up back at square one probably even before we finished. The Chilterns aren't going to de-AONB themselves, Camden isn't going to empty out beside Euston and the HS1-HS2 link and the number of houses needing demolished is only going to increase. It's better to get the construction pain over and done with now and then there will be decades for nature to rebuild itself around the line with all the trees, ponds and other environmental mitigation works which are planned along the route.

 

[wildcard]

I doubt the existence of the Chiltern franchise beyond 2021. It is too small and the opportunities for growth are limited.

Opportunities for growth do exist with East-West Rail. Whether it would be part of a Chiltern franchise or a stand-alone operation is something else.
With E-W you have Oxford , High Wycombe and Aylesbury to Bletchley , Milton Keynes and Bedford . And with the Croxley link , Watford to Aylesbury. I would have thought there is money to be made with all of those connections.

 

[swt_passenger]

Opportunities for growth do exist with East-West Rail. Whether it would be part of a Chiltern franchise or a stand-alone operation is something else.
With E-W you have Oxford , High Wycombe and Aylesbury to Bletchley , Milton Keynes and Bedford . And with the Croxley link , Watford to Aylesbury. I would have thought there is money to be made with all of those connections.

There's little point in EWR being standalone, but at the same time the only route that really fits with Chiltern is the extension from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes. The services that will be connected across Oxford towards Reading (or even further) would just as easily fit with FGW or their successors.

 

[HowardGWR]

There's little point in EWR being standalone, but at the same time the only route that really fits with Chiltern is the extension from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes. The services that will be connected across Oxford towards Reading (or even further) would just as easily fit with FGW or their successors.

Surely a logical 'cross country' (yes I know they all do, even from London ) franchise would include E /W?

We had an earlier poster writing about another proposed new link, (I think the Okehampton one) as though it should be the preserve of SWT. Is this not putting the cart before the horse? Should we not think of the strategy of the railway independent of privatisation models?

 

[jimm]

There's little point in EWR being standalone, but at the same time the only route that really fits with Chiltern is the extension from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes. The services that will be connected across Oxford towards Reading (or even further) would just as easily fit with FGW or their successors.

Which is why FGW are keen on the idea of taking on East-West, whereas Chiltern seem less so, probably because, as you say, Aylesbury-MK is a nice, neat extension of their existing operation, which would probably be right up their street, whereas going south and west of Oxford is a different kettle of fish and sits far better with GW operations, in a context where policy favours keeping franchise areas as neat and tidy as possible, probably overlaid with longer-distance trains under the XC franchise to/from both the WCML and MML.

Unless a future XC management undergoes a conversion to the joys of operating stoppers, I can't imagine they would be at all interested in taking on Bedford-Bletchley and the Oxford-Reading local service - nor have suitable rolling stock.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is this not putting the cart before the horse? Should we not think of the strategy of the railway independent of privatisation models?

Yes - but the extension of an existing Chiltern Marylebone service to Milton Keynes is already a defined part of EWR's plans. I'm in agreement that you cannot just assume it will ALL go to Chiltern.

 

[DXMachina]

Living in the Croxley / Moor Park area I'd be glad to see the Met lose the Amersham & Chesham branches. 60mph high density EMUs just aren't well suited to this service, and S-Stock compare poorly with the 75mph DMUs and 100mph 25kv units other lines get.

I agree that the only logical way to do it would be restricting LU to the Uxbridge branch and the slows to Watford and re-electrifying the fasts with the knitting. Moor Park and HotH as interchanges could save commuters on both surviving Met branches some time off the commute, if there was intelligent use of the capacity (Unlike currently where Chiltern services pass thru HotH without stopping at peak times, and no Chilterns stop at Moor Pk)

PS Forget any hope of making Rickmansworth an 8-car stop. Geographically it doesn't work.

 

[jopsuk]

PS Forget any hope of making Rickmansworth an 8-car stop. Geographically it doesn't work.

Surely though if you withdrew the Met as you suggest, then Rickmansworth would only need to be a two-platform station without all the (LU) sidings, which would lift the geographical issues somewhat?