Chiltern Mainline Electrification: How will it happen?

[Bevan Price]

Sadly, I don't see new electrification schemes anywhere unless / until :

1. The shower in charge of DfT are retired, transferred away or sacked.
2. Bi-mode trains have proved to be a very expensive mistake compared with full electrification. And as DfT would doubtless do everything they can to conceal their failures.....

Some of the great great grandchildren of readers may live long enough to see the next major electrication schemes.
(Assuming much of UK has not sunk by then into the sea due to melting of polar ice-caps -- total melting would probably flood much of London and other coastal towns/cities)

 

[simple simon]

To reduce costs the electrification clearances below bridges etc should be the same as BR's. Not what the Office Of Road And Rail want 'today'. I am talking about following safety standards which have been proven safe in over 50 years of real world experience. Not gold plated standards designed to meet new fangled regulations that were designed for railways with larger kinetic envelopes.

Perhaps on the route shared with Metropolitan Line trains the Chilterns should run off the DC - which by then will be 750v rather than 630v DC. (I think this may actually have already happened). Or perhaps the route will be converted to overhead and some S stock trains will be converted to twin system?

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm more of the option that you would just hand over the fast lines to NR who could then upgrade them to NR standards (90-100mph, OHLE, and 8-12 x 20m car platforms). Would obviously involve either removing services from Marylebone or expanding the platforms there as well. It would mean TfL losing access to Rickmansworth, Chesham, and Amersham though, but perhaps a price to pay if it means passengers from Rickmansworth and beyond can have more conventional rolling stock, i.e. far longer and running at higher speeds. If there really is a desire to continue to serve Rickmansworth, then you could always finish of the unbuilt part of the Met upgrade from the 1960s - the four tracking from Watford South junction to Rickmansworth, with that station rebuilt to accommodate. Hell, in time maybe even 4 tracks to Chalfont & Latimer might even be justified.

 

[Chris 76]

Do you think the rest of the Snow Hill Lines would likely get electrified along with any future potential Chiltern electrification? (Mainly Startford - Tyseley via Shirley)

You'd hope electrification of the Snow Hill lines would cover everything: out at least as far as Kidderminster which more than Stourbridge Junction is the outer suburban limit to the south west, and the Stratford routes via Shirley and from Hatton. But this seems very optimistic unless the economics of electrification improve significantly, especially with bi-modes. The best that might be expected is electrification of the Stratford line as far as Whitlocks End, which would electrify the core higher frequency section. The best way to electrify to Stratford would be to do the single track branch from Hatton, which now has an hourly 'fast' Stratford service complementing the hourly slower service via Shirley.

 

[B&I]

Sadly, I don't see new electrification schemes anywhere unless / until :

1. The shower in charge of DfT are retired, transferred away or sacked.
2. Bi-mode trains have proved to be a very expensive mistake compared with full electrification. And as DfT would doubtless do everything they can to conceal their failures.....

Some of the great great grandchildren of readers may live long enough to see the next major electrication schemes.
(Assuming much of UK has not sunk by then into the sea due to melting of polar ice-caps -- total melting would probably flood much of London and other coastal towns/cities)

By which stage the lion's share of public transport spending will probably be on high-speed vaporettos, or Crosssub 3

 

[jimm]

You'd hope electrification of the Snow Hill lines would cover everything: out at least as far as Kidderminster which more than Stourbridge Junction is the outer suburban limit to the south west, and the Stratford routes via Shirley and from Hatton. But this seems very optimistic unless the economics of electrification improve significantly, especially with bi-modes. The best that might be expected is electrification of the Stratford line as far as Whitlocks End, which would electrify the core higher frequency section. The best way to electrify to Stratford would be to do the single track branch from Hatton, which now has an hourly 'fast' Stratford service complementing the hourly slower service via Shirley.

I would venture to suggest that Worcester/Malvern are the outer limit of the outer suburban area these days - the days of services from Birmingham turning back at Kidderminster except in the peaks are long gone.

And the depot at Worcester is important in terms of providing the WMR services via Kidderminster and Stourbridge.

WMR is going to be swimming in new and nearly-new dmus, so the prospects of electrification on the Snow Hill routes are far distant, whatever wiring is going to cost. If an XC scheme brings wires close to Worcester via the Bronsgrove route, that may start to tip the balance, especially if 172s could be cascaded to replace older dmus elsewhere, but that's a lot of ifs.

 

[Mikey C]

I voted for Marylebone Northwards

1) With diesel cars becoming public enemy number one in big cities, and electric buses starting to arrive, there will be massive political pressure to do something about the last non electrified line into London. On ALL the other lines where full electrification hasn't happened, the inner London section has been done, and bimodes mean that that section can be used even for services extending onto non electrified lines
2) Demand for Chiltern services will keep growing, as many of the towns on its route expand. Rather than buying a large fleet of new DMUs to replace the 165s, surely it makes more sense to start electrifying the line and use the displaced DMUs to start replacing the 150s etc elsewhere?

 

[LeeLivery]

If the question was under this government I'd say no chance, but they won't be in power forever.

I've gone Marylebone northwards.
1) London to Aylesbury via Amersham.
2) Neasden/Old Oak to MK, Oxford, Coventry, Nuneaton & Stratford via High W.
3) Hatton/Stratford to Birmingham & Worcester
4) Infill: Aynho to Oxford

 

[Bletchleyite]

WMR is going to be swimming in new and nearly-new dmus, so the prospects of electrification on the Snow Hill routes are far distant, whatever wiring is going to cost. If an XC scheme brings wires close to Worcester via the Bronsgrove route, that may start to tip the balance, especially if 172s could be cascaded to replace older dmus elsewhere, but that's a lot of ifs.

At some point in the not too distant future it will be time to scrap all of Class 15x (possibly except 158). A cascade from the Snow Hill and Chiltern lines would provide a good number of decent modern DMUs with at least 20 years left in them for this purpose. They're good for the Birmingham area S-Bahn services, and they'd do equally well for Manchester, for instance.

 

[The Ham]

At some point in the not too distant future it will be time to scrap all of Class 15x (possibly except 158). A cascade from the Snow Hill and Chiltern lines would provide a good number of decent modern DMUs with at least 20 years left in them for this purpose. They're good for the Birmingham area S-Bahn services, and they'd do equally well for Manchester, for instance.

Quite, otherwise the argument would be that we'd need to wire up (say) several long rural lines which may see less than 20 services a day rather than an urban core that over sections could see 20 services in a matter of a few hours. Just because the rural lines have older trains than the urban areas.

 

[tbtc]

I think that a lot is resting on the 755s (the bi-mode Greater Anglia trains on order).

If they work straight out of the box then there's lots of potential for partial electrification of the Chiltern line, given the high frequencies at the Birmingham and London ends.

If they don't though... I'm not so confident about any of the Chiltern line being wired in the next twenty years (given the backlogs we have with the MML, Valley Lines etc).

Once HS2 is up and running as far as Birmingham, there'll be huge capacity on the London - Birmingham corridors - if 90% of Euston - New Street passengers move from Virgin to HS2 then that means thousands of extra seats on the 390s - so the Chiltern line's future can't rely on cheap London - Birmingham tickets (given the changes to that market). Plus additional capacity freed up for more local services on the southern WCML may make stations like Tring more attractive for London trips than using the Aylesbury line.

I'm not saying that the Chiltern line will be forgotten about but some of it's improvements since privatisation have come about because it's been able to undercut the WCML - once the WCML becomes the "underdog" to HS2 then that may be harder to sustain.

 

[The Ham]

I think that a lot is resting on the 755s (the bi-mode Greater Anglia trains on order).

If they work straight out of the box then there's lots of potential for partial electrification of the Chiltern line, given the high frequencies at the Birmingham and London ends.

If they don't though... I'm not so confident about any of the Chiltern line being wired in the next twenty years (given the backlogs we have with the MML, Valley Lines etc).

Once HS2 is up and running as far as Birmingham, there'll be huge capacity on the London - Birmingham corridors - if 90% of Euston - New Street passengers move from Virgin to HS2 then that means thousands of extra seats on the 390s - so the Chiltern line's future can't rely on cheap London - Birmingham tickets (given the changes to that market). Plus additional capacity freed up for more local services on the southern WCML may make stations like Tring more attractive for London trips than using the Aylesbury line.

I'm not saying that the Chiltern line will be forgotten about but some of it's improvements since privatisation have come about because it's been able to undercut the WCML - once the WCML becomes the "underdog" to HS2 then that may be harder to sustain.

The other impact from HS2, if the Southern Approach to Heathrow and/or Crossrail 2 is also built, is that for some areas XC services could also be impacted. Which could alter the type of units that they may to wish use (I.e. why aim for intercity route units when it would be closer to a regional railways service in terms of length of journey being made, even if the services is just the same).

 

[cle]

All of the options are useful, and make sense.

Arguably the stopping/local services benefit more in terms of journey times, people served and pollution lessened - so I guess next to look at would be stock use and how delineated it is. Also how can it work alongside the Metropolitan line (if it has to - I'd prefer diverting all to Watford Junction with Moor Park revived as a Chiltern stop, but that is its own saga!)

The Chiltern London routes all interwork, and run further out at the peaks, so maybe the Birmingham ones might be easier, being more standardized. Tricky bit there would be where the wires end, likely Worcester.

 

[bramling]

for Harrow on the Hill to Amersham, how hard is converting the existing fourth rail system to that used on the Watford DC and Richmond branch, with the 3rd rail at 630V and the fourth at 0V and bonded to a running rail?

Quite easily - especially with the new signalling on the Met Line.

You would still have to have two AC/DC interfaces however, and there's also the issue of having shoegear-equipped trains over the entire Chiltern route which introduces an extra potential failure point.

One way or other, the density of the diesel service on Chiltern is now such that electrification must be viable. A business case could be very much helped by the potential availability of large numbers of second-hand mid-life EMUs (e.g. 321s), although whether it would be politically popular for Chiltern to use such trains is another matter.

 

[HSTEd]

The minimum initial-capital cost option is third rail electrification of one or two platforms at Marylebone, then electrification with third rail of the remaining diesel sections of the Aylesbury route.

It could then be operated by London Overground, possibly badged as a new branch of the Metropolitan line.

The fourth rail can be converted to de-facto third rail without enormous difficulty, based on examples elsewhere in the system.

The cost of a detached section of 25kV between Amersham and Aylesbury would destroy any business case otherwise.

 

[bramling]

The minimum initial-capital cost option is third rail electrification of one or two platforms at Marylebone, then electrification with third rail of the remaining diesel sections of the Aylesbury route.
It could then be operated by London Overground, possibly badged as a new branch of the Metropolitan line.

The fourth rail can be converted to de-facto third rail without enormous difficulty, based on examples elsewhere in the system.

The cost of a detached section of 25kV between Amersham and Aylesbury would destroy any business case otherwise.

I don't think AC between Amersham and Aylesbury would be a major issue, so long as it was part of a scheme which included the rest of Chiltern. We're not talking about a massively intense service, so it would be quite practicable to have a supply point somewhere like Aylesbury which could also be part of the wider scheme, and the secondary feed could some from somewhere on the mainline. There would be a potential resilience issue, but this is no different to other places (e.g. Clacton being fed from Hythe).

I agree you could never viably do Amersham-Aylesbury on its own, as having two supply points just for this would be a waste of money.

 

[The Ham]

I don't think AC between Amersham and Aylesbury would be a major issue, so long as it was part of a scheme which included the rest of Chiltern. We're not talking about a massively intense service, so it would be quite practicable to have a supply point somewhere like Aylesbury which could also be part of the wider scheme, and the secondary feed could some from somewhere on the mainline. There would be a potential resilience issue, but this is no different to other places (e.g. Clacton being fed from Hythe).

I agree you could never viably do Amersham-Aylesbury on its own, as having two supply points just for this would be a waste of money.

Would this not change once East West Rail is built? As then there'd be a link to the north. As such it's likely that this course be a good contender (subject to power supply) for a battery EMU to extend the services until such time that East West Rail gets its wires.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The minimum initial-capital cost option is third rail electrification of one or two platforms at Marylebone, then electrification with third rail of the remaining diesel sections of the Aylesbury route.
It could then be operated by London Overground, possibly badged as a new branch of the Metropolitan line.

Or just take it out of Marylebone entirely, order a few extra S8s and run it as part of the Met, reinstating fast services.

 

[mr_jrt]

Where would you take services from to provide the paths south of Harrow for the Aylesbury Met services?

 

[route:oxford]

If the question was under this government I'd say no chance, but they won't be in power forever.

Then it would be a definitive "never" in the event that Labour return to power.

They don't do infrastructure.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Then it would be a definitive "never" in the event that Labour return to power.

They don't do infrastructure.

yep - the history of the last 100 years has proved that.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I don't think AC between Amersham and Aylesbury would be a major issue, so long as it was part of a scheme which included the rest of Chiltern. We're not talking about a massively intense service, so it would be quite practicable to have a supply point somewhere like Aylesbury which could also be part of the wider scheme, and the secondary feed could some from somewhere on the mainline. There would be a potential resilience issue, but this is no different to other places (e.g. Clacton being fed from Hythe).

I agree you could never viably do Amersham-Aylesbury on its own, as having two supply points just for this would be a waste of money.

I think HS2 will have a bulk supply point from the 400 kV transmission system just North-West of Quainton, which would tick most of your boxes, and I expect adding redundant capacity (or at least the space for an extra transformer) is a relative no-brainer. I think it is also more consistent with current traction power schemes than trying to tap into distribution networks.

I would expect a further BSP would be needed closer to London, I'd say Little Missenden or between Gerrards Cross & Beaconsfield are potential locations.

 

[oldchuffer]

Crayons out for a moment...even if the sums added up I doubt it would happen soon.

It's widely known that 3rd rail + OHLE are very difficult on the same track, but what about 4th rail and OHLE together?

In an earlier idea for Crossrail, the line to Aylesbury was mooted as a branch (and then dropped). Could that idea be resurected in the future? Or is the business case heavily against it? Presumably there was some sort of outline idea of how to achieve this. Connecting (some how) Neasden to Old Oak Common and then electrifying all the way to OOC to Aylesbury via Harrow on the Hill, that would form an extra Crossrail branch. Thus the Aylesbury services would become part of CrossRail, and the whole route via Harrow and Amersham would become TFL territory .

Technically, this wouldnt be Chiltern Electrification, just electrification of a former Chiltern line.

 

[hwl]

I think HS2 will have a bulk supply point from the 400 kV transmission system just North-West of Quainton, which would tick most of your boxes, and I expect adding redundant capacity (or at least the space for an extra transformer) is a relative no-brainer. I think it is also more consistent with current traction power schemes than trying to tap into distribution networks.

I would expect a further BSP would be needed closer to London, I'd say Little Missenden or between Gerrards Cross & Beaconsfield are potential locations.

Agreed everything is moving in the direction of bulk supply points from National Grid rather than supplies from distribution networks.

London end feed - the ideal location is just east of Old Oak Common as the 400kV cable network goes under the route there and there are existing 400kV supplies for Crossrail and GWML at the Nat Grid substation at Kensal Green (the former Kensal Gas works just north of the GWML and east of the WWL)

 

[PeterC]

Crayons out for a moment...even if the sums added up I doubt it would happen soon.

It's widely known that 3rd rail + OHLE are very difficult on the same track, but what about 4th rail and OHLE together?

In an earlier idea for Crossrail, the line to Aylesbury was mooted as a branch (and then dropped). Could that idea be resurected in the future? Or is the business case heavily against it? Presumably there was some sort of outline idea of how to achieve this. Connecting (some how) Neasden to Old Oak Common and then electrifying all the way to OOC to Aylesbury via Harrow on the Hill, that would form an extra Crossrail branch. Thus the Aylesbury services would become part of CrossRail, and the whole route via Harrow and Amersham would become TFL territory .

Technically, this wouldnt be Chiltern Electrification, just electrification of a former Chiltern line.

It is a pity that Aylesbury didn't stay in the Crossrail plans. Capacity constraints at both Baker Street and Marylebone make it difficult to come up with a solution that concentrates Aylesbury services on one or the other and any electrification options without doing this mean having a small fleet of dedicated stock.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's widely known that 3rd rail + OHLE are very difficult on the same track, but what about 4th rail and OHLE together?

I would imagine that it's actually a bit easier, given the AC and DC return paths are completely seperated, so there wouldn't be need for complicated switching of earth connections depending on what kind of train is present.

 

[London Trains]

1) Oxford > Coventry, Stourbridge & Bedford
2) Banbury & Bicester Village > Marylebone
3) Aylesbury > Marylebone & Princes Risborough

 

[aylesbury]

The problem with the M/bone Aylesbury service is the Met, speeds are constrained from Harrow to Amersham and the answer could be to confine LU to the slow lines if possible.The new service to MK will be coming down via Risboro this will be truly fast journey and in rush hours could be usefull inwards to M/bone .Overall our services fit into the needs of passengers along the line from Amersham to Aylesbury with reasonable stock that is clean and reliable stringing the wires will not bring any improvements.