electrifying to Aylesbury?

[jopsuk]

To continue a discussion from this thread, and answering a point

Wouldn't do all that require some sort of grade seperation where the Chiltern Line joins the Met?
Otherwise you have to dual electrify the junction which is bound to be a nightmare.

Much simpler to dual electrify two sections of two track plain line at the ends.

And you don't have to tear up the current service paterns to do it.

What was being suggested is cutting the stations north of the Watford Triangle junction off. South of this junction the Met is four-track to Harrow on the Hill, with Chiltern trains sharing the fast/main lines whilst stopping Met services use the slow/relief (someone will tell me which terminology is used here!).

It helps that whilst south of HotH, the Met has lines paired by direction (though unusually with the slow up the middle!), north of there they are paired by use (like for example on the Great Western)

At Harrow, the line from Uxbridge joins at a grade separated junction to form a six track railway. South of Harrow on the Hill the lines the Chiltern services use are not electrified.

If the main lines were disconnected from the relief/uxbridge lines south of HotH and at all the crossovers north of there- plus the north chord of the triangle- the two systems would be completely separated. No Met trains would then run Amersham or Chesham. Services from there would all run to Marylebone. Met Services north of HotH would all run to Uxbridge or Watford.

 

[Metrailway]

There is no easy solution.

If the Met is cut back to Rickmansworth, Marylebone would not be able to handle the extra traffic. You would have to rebuild Ricky and quad the line from Watford South Junction to Ricky as well. Both are not easy to do.

On the other hand, if the Met returns to Aylesbury and the line loses services to Marylebone, Baker Street would not be able to handle the extra traffic (one of the reasons why MYB did not close in the 80s). Considering developments on the Met in recent years, it is clear that LUL want to make the Met a bog standard Underground line and have no interest in running fast services. So Met to Aylesbury wouldn't work.

So dual electrification at Harrow and Amersham stations seems to be the best option. But then would LUL want the additional costs of maintaining OHLE? It would not be just a few metres of OHLE on the LUL system - there is about 1.5 miles between the NR/LUL boundary north of Amersham and Amersham station.

 

[LE Greys]

There is no easy solution.

If the Met is cut back to Rickmansworth, Marylebone would not be able to handle the extra traffic. You would have to rebuild Ricky and quad the line from Watford South Junction to Ricky as well. Both are not easy to do.

On the other hand, if the Met returns to Aylesbury and the line loses services to Marylebone, Baker Street would not be able to handle the extra traffic (one of the reasons why MYB did not close in the 80s). Considering developments on the Met in recent years, it is clear that LUL want to make the Met a bog standard Underground line and have no interest in running fast services. So Met to Aylesbury wouldn't work.

So dual electrification at Harrow and Amersham stations seems to be the best option. But then would LUL want the additional costs of maintaining OHLE? It would not be just a few metres of OHLE on the LUL system - there is about 1.5 miles between the NR/LUL boundary north of Amersham and Amersham station.

I take it Met stock with pantographs is out of the question as well. It's unfortunate that this has to be a 'one-or-the-other' choice, a through service from Aylesbury to Aldgate sounds very attractive to commuters, especially if it could put up pantographs at Harrow and run non-stop to Moor Park at 75 mph (obviously, suburban train refinements would help as well). The old Met had a lot more innovative spirit. Currently, the answer seems a bit of a bodge. Conductor rail to Aylesbury would require dual-system stock on Chiltern, and mixing the two systems between Harrow and Amersham might cause problems (we need an electrical engineer on this really).

 

[barrykas]

South of this junction the Met is four-track to Harrow on the Hill, with Chiltern trains sharing the fast/main lines whilst stopping Met services use the slow/relief (someone will tell me which terminology is used here!).

Neither of the above! LU terminology (also seen on the Piccadilly Line between Acton Town and Northfields) is fast and local.

 

[MK Tom]

To be honest I'd electrify Princes Risborough to Claydon Junction with 25kv AC as part of a wiring of the Chiltern Main Line, and simply do the London-Amersham-Aylesbury line at 750 DC third rail. I know that's out of line with policy but it's an isolated line partially already electrified third rail. Seeing as the only through services will take the Risborough route, that seems to make sense to me. Where it shares with the Met do the same compromise we see where the Overground shares with the District or the Bakerloo.

 

[corfield]

A "basic" (ie non hugely expensive adding track in Rickmansworth, extra platforms at Marylebone or Baker St and basically the same arrangement as at present) answer would be using OHLE AC Amersham to Aylesbury (and beyond to East West), DC Amersham to Harrow on the Hill (Met fast/joint lines) and then OHLE AC on the Chiltern Main Line into Marylebone.

So Dual Voltage EMUs for Chiltern. A sub class of whatever EMU they get for CML services ala 377s.

Ok, 2 changes per trip, but this is as routine LO and Thameslink operations so presumably practical ?

Given the capacity constraint of Marylebone not being able to take the Aylesbury lines Met services and vica versa with Baker St then the only alternative would be one arm becoming a Crossrail branch to free up Marylebone ?

(Of course, with Plats 5&6, and all the other work there, could Marylebone actually take the entire outer Aylesbury line services now ? Assuming resignalling and higher accel EMUs easing usage of the twin track approach?, perhaps with a West Hampstead Interchange and offloading of pax to Thameslink, LO NLL, Met & Jubilee lines from all Chiltern services - maybe even terminating some there?)

Or knock down the community centre and some of the housing and build 2 more platforms at Marylebone (wouldnt need to touch Paribas, and the road bridge is high enough I scientifically reckon...).

Fantastic as Marylebone is, still has rubbish onward connections. Even "just" widened pavements, one way road, "instant" crossing lights favour on the walk to Baker St would help ! Ideally pedestrianise the entire route...

Why they didnt build Marylebone 200yards further South and put it on the Circle line I dont know. Yes the hotel, but they had loads of space and a more St Pancras style "above the Station" could have done it. They must have realised Marylebone was poorly connected even at planning stage?

On another note - the Met was quite big into freight - did any of that ever come as far as Baker St, ie was there freight yard space there and if so, what happened to it?

 

[Metrailway]

I take it Met stock with pantographs is out of the question as well. It's unfortunate that this has to be a 'one-or-the-other' choice, a through service from Aylesbury to Aldgate sounds very attractive to commuters, especially if it could put up pantographs at Harrow and run non-stop to Moor Park at 75 mph (obviously, suburban train refinements would help as well). The old Met had a lot more innovative spirit. Currently, the answer seems a bit of a bodge. Conductor rail to Aylesbury would require dual-system stock on Chiltern, and mixing the two systems between Harrow and Amersham might cause problems (we need an electrical engineer on this really).

I expect the S Stock to last for at least 30 years and it can't be modified with a panto so this rules out Met DC to AC conversion until the 2040s at the earliest. Anyway a conversion is not going to happen as LUL would then have all the associated costs to maintain two electrification systems for not much gain.

DC to Aylesbury could be an option. Aylesbury would be able to get 4tph off peak (2 Chiltern fast and 2 Met locals). But then DC electrification would go against NR policy.

Dual stock does seem to be the most feasible solution although you would have to make the Chiltern peak fasts stop at Amersham and Harrow to lower/raise pantos.

I fear what will happen will be the easiest and cheapest 'solution' - don't electrify it; just operate the line with 165s until they literally fall apart.

Why they didnt build Marylebone 200yards further South and put it on the Circle line I dont know. Yes the hotel, but they had loads of space and a more St Pancras style "above the Station" could have done it. They must have realised Marylebone was poorly connected even at planning stage?

On another note - the Met was quite big into freight - did any of that ever come as far as Baker St, ie was there freight yard space there and if so, what happened to it?

I believe the GCR intended to build a connection from Marylebone onto the Inner Circle but it ran out of money when constructing the Extension line!

There was some freight into Central London. There was a v. short siding off Platform 1 at Baker Street. I think it was called the Hotel siding and it was used to deliver coal to Chiltern Court.

Picture of the last delivery of coal:

LTM

 

[TheGrew]

Is there any reason why you couldn't electrify 3rd rail from Marylebone to Aylesbury and West Ruislip, and in the later case then change OHLE for the Journey northwards (as will effectively happen with the SWML if OHLE gets extended up to Woking). I appreciate 3rd Rail might be out of fashion but it is probably the easiest way of accommodating the S Stock. You could then run something like a 378 to Aylesbury.

 

[barrykas]

Is there any reason why you couldn't electrify 3rd rail from Marylebone to Aylesbury and West Ruislip, and in the later case then change OHLE for the Journey northwards (as will effectively happen with the SWML if OHLE gets extended up to Woking). I appreciate 3rd Rail might be out of fashion but it is probably the easiest way of accommodating the S Stock. You could then run something like a 378 to Aylesbury.

'elf and Safety. My understanding is that new 3rd rail is only permitted as an extension of existing schemes, and the closest existing installation ends near the Westway on the West London Line.

And whilst it would theoretically be possible to extend pseudo-fourth rail electrification from Harrow to Marylebone, the existence of Chiltern ATP from Neasden South Junction may create difficulties.

 

[jopsuk]

There's a bit whereby I sort of wish the Met had been MORE ambitious- if the the Circle was four-track, at least from Baker Street to Aldgate, with perhaps more bays at Aldgate, and definitely grade separated junctions (remember, many of the buildings that make this improbable today weren't built, plus there was less impetus to preserve buildings), it would be practical to have services using an "express" type stock run to Aldgate, missing most stops in central London

 

[mr_jrt]

My usual solution to the capacity issues at Marylebone for any takeover north of Moor Park is to move the High Wycombe Chiltern suburban services onto Crossrail using the NNML. Then you'd have plenty of capacity for Amersham services, and probably some for more LDHS ones too.

 

[Daniel]

with Chiltern trains sharing the fast/main lines whilst stopping Met services use the slow/relief (someone will tell me which terminology is used here!).

Neither of the above! LU terminology (also seen on the Piccadilly Line between Acton Town and Northfields) is fast and local.

Not quite.

North of Harrow-on-the-Hill, the four trains are the North/Soundbound Main and North/Southbound Local - (and the flyunder branch towards Rayners from Harrow is the NB/SB Uxbridge).
South of Harrow-on-the-Hill, it's North/South Fast/Local, with the Chilterns diverging on the UP/DN Harrow towards Neasden Junction.

And whilst it would theoretically be possible to extend pseudo-fourth rail electrification from Harrow to Marylebone, the existence of Chiltern ATP from Neasden South Junction may create difficulties.

I don't think that this would affect the ATP system, as my understanding from speaking to Chiltern staff that after the SSR signalling upgrade, Chiltern will use a 'permissible speed' type ATP system on the NB/SB Main north of Harrow.

 

[Metrailway]

And whilst it would theoretically be possible to extend pseudo-fourth rail electrification from Harrow to Marylebone, the existence of Chiltern ATP from Neasden South Junction may create difficulties.

ATP shouldn't be a problem. BR installed SELCAB ATP at Northwood in the early 90s as a trial installation and I believe it was successful. ATP wasn't installed on the Met in the end as I believe they couldn't arrange the required possessions with LU.

However, as Daniel has stated, ATP for Chiltern will be installed on the Met, when the line is resignalled in a few years time.

There's a bit whereby I sort of wish the Met had been MORE ambitious- if the the Circle was four-track, at least from Baker Street to Aldgate, with perhaps more bays at Aldgate, and definitely grade separated junctions (remember, many of the buildings that make this improbable today weren't built, plus there was less impetus to preserve buildings), it would be practical to have services using an "express" type stock run to Aldgate, missing most stops in central London

Work was done to extend the Widened Lines to Euston but it was abandoned. I find it remarkable that the Met is 4 track between Harrow and Watford South Junction as they were built mainly for the GCML, which was already in the process of being run down by BR (M).

 

[cle]

It would be neat and tidy to have this running AC and Met only to Watford Junction and Uxbridge - at nice high frequencies.

What to do with the fast Met lines and Wembley Park platforms, I'm not sure.

But Marylebone would be stretched for platforms - and the two track approach from Neasden would be very busy. You could fit in another long (thin) platform fairly easily - Charing Cross copes after all but it doesn't have long distance/loco trains that need to dwell.

I would say 6tph extra would be needed at Marylebone -
2tph (Wembley Park) - Harrow - Moor Park and all stations to Chesham.
2tph (Wembley Park) - Harrow - Moor Park and all stations to Amersham.
2tph Harrow - Amersham and all stations to Aylesbury.

and maybe 2tph from Watford Junction to Amersham or Aylesbury too.

 

[Chris125]

Is there any reason why you couldn't electrify 3rd rail from Marylebone to Aylesbury and West Ruislip, and in the later case then change OHLE for the Journey northwards (as will effectively happen with the SWML if OHLE gets extended up to Woking).

With the Chiltern Mainline a strong candidate for electrification in the next 10-15 years, there's really no good reason not to use OHLE everywhere but Amersham-Harrow. It might not be the most exciting conclusion but dual voltage stock over LU electrification is a tried and tested concept.

Chris

 

[Dstock7080]

It might not be the most exciting conclusion but dual voltage stock over LU electrification is a tried and tested concept.

Chris

Where does/did this happen?

 

[aylesbury]

I doubt if anything will happen on the Aylesbury line as it is very much a backwater and the emphasis will be trains to MK when East West opens .At least our units are going to be refurbished starting in September ,this is a step forward.Mareylebone to Brum is the main objective for Chiltern and eventualy this will be electrified but not for ten years at least.

 

[HSTEd]

Where does/did this happen?

Watford DC lines use modified 4 rail electrification over the metals they share with the Bakerloo line.

And the line to Moorgate is essentially a repurposed london undergrond line.

 

[OxtedL]

Watford DC lines use modified 4 rail electrification over the metals they share with the PicadillyBakerloo line.

And the line to Moorgate is essentially a repurposed london undergrond line.

Nowhere on either of those routes do you find OHL on a 4th rail track, though?

 

[HSTEd]

Nowhere on either of those routes do you find OHL on a 4th rail track, though?

LU 4th rail can function perfectly well when it is effectively 3rd rail with an extra contact surface that is connected to the running rails (this is the set-up used on the Bakerloo line (nice catch btw)).

Technologies to permit conversion between third rail and OHL are well proven.

Having an extra piece of metal connected to the running rails doesn't actually alter the electrical situation.

 

[Zoe]

What technically prevents having both overhead and conductor rail electrification on the same section of line?

 

[swt_passenger]

What technically prevents having both overhead and conductor rail electrification on the same section of line?

The installation standards for the different traction return current systems prevent long stretches of dual AC/DC supply. It's basically because on an AC system the running rail is earthed, and on DC it floats and is only earthed at the substation.

This has been covered in another thread discussing the reasons why Basingstoke to Southampton won't have both supplies, and why the recently installed dual supply system between Farringdon and Blackfriars is so amazingly complex and hence very expensive.

In summary, dual supplies at changeover locations are practical, but long sections are too expensive.

 

[starrymarkb]

Also there are shared sections BR/LUL between Gunnersbuy and Richmond and also between Putney and Wimbledon. IIRC a few years ago there was a blockade at Earlsfield which saw the inner suburban SWT services using the District line to avoid the block (Long distance went via Chertsey)

 

[swt_passenger]

Also there are shared sections BR/LUL between Gunnersbuy and Richmond and also between Putney and Wimbledon. IIRC a few years ago there was a blockade at Earlsfield which saw the inner suburban SWT services using the District line to avoid the block (Long distance went via Chertsey)

Neither of those sections meet the definition of 'dual electrification' systems though. The LU trains are running on the same supply voltage as the mainline third rail DC units, the fourth rail is electrically bonded to the running rails.

What has been suggested earlier is 25 kV OHLE and LU style third and fourth rail DC being present together - there is no practical example of that so far.

 

[Dstock7080]

OxtedL and swt_passenger are quite right, there are no sections of LU electrified lines that run dual voltage stock.
Watford DC, Wimbledon and Richmond are NR electrified lines adapted for LU stock.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Crossrail 1 (whcih I had just a bit to do with as Business and Operations Manager NSE) had plans to wire Nesden South to Aylesbury and Chesham , effectively leaving the Met as Uxbridge and Watford only via the UXO line and the slows north of Harrow on the Hill. Much work was done on clearances and so on , in fact I walked Ricky to HoH one Sunday am with the engineers during a major all line block. It turned out to be much more expensive than expected ,partly due to the substandard track clearances (for seperation when the 4 tracking north of Pinner etc was done in the late 60's). The residents of Chesham also got miffed about unsightly OLE !

The service pattern was 4 Aylesbury semi-fast , 4 Amersham and 2 Chesham through - (leaving 14 tph on the Reading line) - 10 tph was really too much service , so high engineering costs and lowish loadings were not good news. The whole thing got binned anyway by John Major and his mates , leaving the Met to upgrade itself (track and signalling were in not great condition anyway) and the new Chiltern franchise to get on with it !.

 

[Zoe]

The whole thing got binned anyway by John Major and his mates

At the time of the original bill it had the support of John Major's government but it failed at Committee Stage in 1994 as the preamble to the bill was not proven.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

At the time of the original bill it had the support of John Major's government but it failed at Committee Stage in 1994 as the preamble to the bill was not proven.

I know all too well as a person who did a lot of the briefing of the QC's at the Committee ....something I did not particularly enjoy in terms of the outcome.No point going into now so many years later , but the MP's were not exactly pro the scheme - particularly one who voted against it , despite being part funded by a Railway union. Best forgotten really. "Support" does not equal being prepared to sign cheques.

A cynic might suggest it got in the way of setting up "Railtrack" ...:roll:

 

[corfield]

Interesting on the freight info cheers. The lack of a Circle line connection is a pain in the arse requiring a walk I must admit. Especially as they are so close but yet so far...

If dual voltage AC / 4th rail isnt an option for future Chiltern stock then something will have to give.

The comments about Marylebone lacking capacity for all outer Met services (ie. Rickmansworth oitwards, or even from Harrow On the Hill) presumably date to BR and the early Crossrail proposals ? With Chiltern's improvements, could that no longer be the case?

The express services to Birmingham and soon Oxford will presumably decline/vanish (as expresses) once the GWML is completed and HS2 is in build - "restoring" capacity for the metro and outer surburban services at Marylebone?

 

[Chris125]

If dual voltage AC / 4th rail isnt an option for future Chiltern stock then something will have to give.

All Chiltern would need are conventional dual voltage EMU's - they'd use OHLE on the existing non-electrified sections, and on the Met they'd operate in the same way as 3rd rail units do over sections of the Richmond and Wimbledon branches.

Like i said, it might not be as exciting as taking over sections of the Met or S Stock to Aylesbury but there's really no need for such radical solutions which have numerous drawbacks.

Chris