Chiltern Platform Extensions

[Cherry_Picker]

I've heard some stations along the Chiltern route are having their platforms lengthened to accommodate 9 cars within the next year. If this is true (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't) then that is quite a big deal operationally.

 

[swt_passenger]

I've heard some stations along the Chiltern route are having their platforms lengthened to accommodate 9 cars within the next year. If this is true (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't) then that is quite a big deal operationally.

It is shown in the CP5 enhancements draft as follows, page 120:

Chiltern Main Line Train Lengthening

Operating Route: LNW
Project reference code: LNW008
Previous project reference code: NW006
Last updated: December 2013
Output: Capacity

CP5 output driver
Infrastructure interventions are required to help facilitate the operational plans developed with train operators to meet the HLOS capacity metrics and support forecast demand in CP5. On the Chiltern Main Line, platform extensions are required to facilitate the proposal for train lengthening to 9-car operation at key stations in the morning peak, to deliver increased capacity into London Marylebone.

Scope of works
Platform extensions are required to accommodate the proposed 9-car operation at five key stations on the Chiltern route: Bicester North, Haddenham and Thame Parkway, Princes Risborough, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield.

The GRIP dates shown don't really suggest 'within the next year' though, GRIP 4 (single option selection) is down for December this year, with GRIP 6 'tbc'.

 

[67018]

I've heard some stations along the Chiltern route are having their platforms lengthened to accommodate 9 cars within the next year. If this is true (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't) then that is quite a big deal operationally.

That's good news given the apparent rate of growth - the 7 and 8 car peak services are already nearly full. Where will the stock come from though?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I'm not sure. I understand FTPE will not need their 170s soon so they could be cascaded and of course there are always more Mk3 coaches to be had. It's all speculation of course, but obviously something is in place or the platforms wouldn't need lengthening. If it is DMU work then there will need to be guards on the train too unless the modus operandi for DOO changes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

2018 you mean?

 

[WestCountry]

I've heard some stations along the Chiltern route are having their platforms lengthened to accommodate 9 cars within the next year. If this is true (and I have no reason to believe that it isn't) then that is quite a big deal operationally.

How are they planning to put 9-car formations together? Triple 3-car 168s wouldn't allow more than 2 such sets, and using 165s would limit the speed. Would (4)168+(3)168+(2)172 work?

 

[joeykins82]

I had a look at the Timetable Planning Rules document and High Wycombe's platforms can only take 7-cars. 9-car extensions would enable 68+7xMkIII+DVT and doubled up 4-car 168s. It probably makes more economic and operational sense to lengthen to 9-cars rather than lengthening to 8 and then going back in a few years time to lengthen to 9.

 

[DownSouth]

Could it be a good place for displaced 9-car HST sets to see out their twilight years, perhaps with the gearing swapped to trade top speed for acceleration.

 

[jopsuk]

Be clear here, by "nine car" you need to include DVT/Loco/Power Cars/etc. So any HSTs would have to be 2+7. Doubt Chiltern would take them "as is"- I guess if they were desperate for mrk 3s they might take rakes, rewire them (whilst adding power doors etc) for loco hauled use and either convert a power car to a DVT (like "cabbage cars"), with a loco (68?) on the other end

 

[Cherry_Picker]

No you don't. Trains stop with locomotives/DVT off the platforms every day of the week. It happens at multiple stations served by Chiltern and I'm sure it happens on other routes too.

 

[jopsuk]

But that assumes signal positions, junctions etc allows it?

 

[The Planner]

Not ideal to sit in front of a platform signal, especially if it is a restrictive aspect, I would presume but I don't see why that should stop it.

 

[sprinterguy]

But that assumes signal positions, junctions etc allows it?

Indeed - Based on the current loco-hauled sets (They're operating with six mark 3s these days, aren't they?) I seriously cannot envisage that you could accommodate any more than a 2+7 formation at, for example, Birmingham Moor Street, where the signal positions definitely are a limiting factor, especially with regards to the bay platforms. Special regard is already given to the loco-hauled sets at the length that they are at Cradley Heath.

The list of stations that are to receive platform extensions would suggest to me that the scheme is being angled primarily at the Chiltern commuter services into Marylebone, rather than the longer distance services to and from Birmingham.

I also can't see why Chiltern would be interesting in taking on rolling stock (in the form of HSTs) that is older still (markedly so when compared to the DVTs and 67s) than the kit that they currently use on the loco-hauled services.

 

[mr_jrt]

...and people keep telling me there's no demand from Crossrail up the Chiltern line... lengthen their stations to 10 cars now and all you need are some knitting and a restoration of the NNML to OOC.

 

[WestCountry]

I take it this is 9x 23m? All their stock is that length.
If so, the platforms will already be long enough for 10x 20m Crossrail/Thameslink vehicles - 9*23m = 207m.

Unless all platform lengths are in 20m units for convenience.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I would assume 9 x 23. The stop boards between Leamington and Birmingham were based on the 20 metre carriages of a class 150 which meant there were a couple of locations where Chiltern had different stop boards to Central/LM even if the trains had the same number of coaches. The stop boards were remeasured and moved at a lot of locations when LM got 172s in 2011. This implies strongly to me that Chiltern have always used 23 metres as their measurement.

 

[Chris125]

...and people keep telling me there's no demand from Crossrail up the Chiltern line... lengthen their stations to 10 cars now and all you need are some knitting and a restoration of the NNML to OOC.

There is a world of difference between no demand, which I'm quite sure has never been suggested by anyone, and not enough demand relative to the cost and impact on capacity - that's the issue.

Chris

 

[HowardGWR]

There is a world of difference between no demand, which I'm quite sure has never been suggested by anyone, and not enough demand relative to the cost and impact on capacity - that's the issue.

Chris

Indeed, but I think the clue to 'enough demand' is the fact that Crossrail takes you as a commuter where you want to go, whereas the other options don't. If you get out at Marylebone you are faced with another change, except for the shopping area and Westminster, or another walk to Baker St for the City and Wharf. So it would be popular. However I agree with your capacity point about cramming everything through OOC. Some have been, in addition, advocating a diversion from the WCML into OOC, to boot. You can't get a quart into a pint pot (or perhaps squeeze through the egg timer is a better analogy?).

 

[mr_jrt]

Indeed, but I think the clue to 'enough demand' is the fact that Crossrail takes you as a commuter where you want to go, whereas the other options don't. If you get out at Marylebone you are faced with another change, except for the shopping area and Westminster, or another walk to Baker St for the City and Wharf. So it would be popular. However I agree with your capacity point about cramming everything through OOC. Some have been, in addition, advocating a diversion from the WCML into OOC, to boot. You can't get a quart into a pint pot (or perhaps squeeze through the egg timer is a better analogy?).

Well, I don't really see the point of prioritising Crossrail over the WCML - Euston is very well connected and can handle the existing suburban services fine, so Crossrail adds nothing to the WCML beyond direct access to Canary Wharf. Euston has ample capacity for more services should the signalling be improved, whereas Marylebone is hugely constrained. It's a no-brainer for me.

That said, Thameslink are planning (maybe not wisely) vastly more branches:

If they can handle THAT mess, three western Crossrail branches should be a piece of cake.

 

[Andyjs247]

How long are the platforms going to be on the Oxford route, e.g. Bicester Town and Oxford Parkway? If I remember they are planned for 8 coaches, but just wondering if they now need to be longer and if there may be diagrams that interwork between Banbury/Birmingham and Oxford for example?

 

[The Planner]

8 car with passive for 10. While since I last saw any plans but I think the platforms initially are 195m so 8x23m will fit. They may go straight in and do the 10 from the start though.

 

[swt_passenger]

If they can handle THAT mess, three western Crossrail branches should be a piece of cake.

That map predates the decision to combine Thameslink and Southern. It is just the originally proposed Thameslink franchise with the addition of the (none Thameslink) lines into Moorgate, but reflects fairly early ideas which were quickly abandoned, like Littlehampton, Guildford, and Eastbourne. It should not have seen the light of day but they wanted to put something on the website.

The currently intended Thameslink routes of the combined TSGN franchise would probably be significantly simply if drawn on their own. If the aim was to show the complexity of running Thameslink you wouldn't necessarily include Moorgate would you?

 

[mr_jrt]

That map predates the decision to combine Thameslink and Southern. It is just the originally proposed Thameslink franchise with the addition of the (none Thameslink) lines into Moorgate, but reflects fairly early ideas which were quickly abandoned, like Littlehampton, Guildford, and Eastbourne. It should not have seen the light of day but they wanted to put something on the website.

The currently intended Thameslink routes of the combined TSGN franchise would probably be significantly simply if drawn on their own. If the aim was to show the complexity of running Thameslink you wouldn't necessarily include Moorgate would you?

Alright then:

 

[swt_passenger]

Nice one. Much simpler all round, I commend it to the Thameslink Programme web authors...