-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
LUL take over services to Aylesbury
- Thread starter 74A
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
bramling
Veteran Member
From an operational point of view, there would certainly be some merit in allowing Chiltern to ditch the Amersham route. However there's quite a few issues:
* Would passengers appreciate having to use Underground trains (I presume Aylesbury itself would retain some form of through Chiltern service via High Wycombe?)
* Assuming the Met trains are in place of the current Chiltern, where are the extra S stock trains going to come from, and how are they going to be accommodated at the London end?
* Who is going to pay for this, and would the Mayoralty buy-in to a project which revolves around shire counties?
* Would extension of the 4-rail system be permitted?
* Where is the replacement Chiltern depot going to be situated, and who is going to pay for it?
I just can't see a 4th rail extension of that size being economic, let alone permitted by the ORR. Also, would S Stock be able to keep to the current timings, and would you keep the current mix of service patterns or just move to an Every train/All Stations model?
Snow1964
Established Member
Personally I think it is more likely that some services north of Rickmansworth would go to Chiltern, and the displaced S stock trains leading to District taking over the Ealing-Rayners Lane branch.
That way the spare new Piccadilly trains could go to the Bakerloo (along with the growth build from 24tph to 27tph)
That way the spare new Piccadilly trains could go to the Bakerloo (along with the growth build from 24tph to 27tph)
With regard to any extra stock I'm suggesting there should already be enough spare S stock due to reduced commuter demand. Also no new depot just a couple of stabling roads for first services of the day.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 16,847
Because it would fluff the mayor’s ego? Same reason that TfL seem to want to take over half the South-East’s rail services.
I'm guessing that a service every 15 minutes to Aylesbury would run in the peaks so essentially 5 S-stock trains out of the fleet of 58 8-cars north of Amersham. Is the idea that these would simply be extensions of existing Amersham services or separate? Obviously running separate trains involves more than 5 units to be allocated.
Even in the current circumstances, Chiltern still run some services that don't have station stops south of Great Missenden.
While there are merits in ideas which consolidate existing rolling stock to replace other stock to scrap to reduce the costs of the railway, it appears that there possibly isn't enough S stock to do that for Aylesbury, without cuts elsewhere on the Metropolitan Line, for example no longer going to Aldgate.
Last edited:
Even that wouldn't work because the lost capacity between Aldgate and Baker St would need an equivalent uplift that requires more H & C trains than it currently has.
It would however allow the Circle line the option of an overlapping loop service turning at Aldgate rather than the 'P' shaped route turning at Hammersmith.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,578
I think the s stock has a faster acceleration than the networkers. I believe the top speed is also software limited and can be increased to 90mph of need be.(Although this would require more power )
bramling
Veteran Member
Not really the case, LU hasn't reduced its service as a result of Covid. In order to provide even a basic 2tph Baker Street to Aylesbury service to replace the current Chiltern service you'd be looking at something like 8 trains, more for peak extras which would surely be necessary to at least some extent.
Aylesbury depot is already a problem for Chiltern as it's simply too small, and having your main depot accessible only via a single-track branch would be problematic. A proportion of the current siding space at Aylesbury would also have to be given over to the Met Line, further exacerbating the issue, and there doesn't look like much scope to provide any extra stabling space at Aylesbury on top of what exists already - bearing in mind that the current space is tight with 2,3 and 4 car DMUs, you now have to find space for 8-car S stocks.
Whilst none of this is insurmountable, the big question is who is going to pay. Unless someone can find a significant indirect benefit to London, the Mayor certainly isn't going to.
miklcct
On Moderation
The rail services TfL want to take over are the stopping inner suburban services with most, or even all, their route within London, similar to the Amersham services. TfL should operate all local services up the the London boundary or just outside it.
The Aylesbury services aren't. They are similar to the Woking service which is outside of the TfL plan. Reading is an anomaly due to the necessity of taking over the whole service group with Crossrail, as TfL's original plan is to run until Maidenhead which can't co-exist alongside the GWR stopping services to Reading.
A proportion of the siding space would no longer be needed for Turbos. Indeed, if Chiltern no longer ran via Amersham, there wouldn't be a lot of point in retaining a depot in Aylesbury at all, with Princes Risborough perhaps a better location for a new one.
However, again who is paying?
miklcct
On Moderation
If it is about electrification, then the state should be paying as removing the diesel from Marylebone comes with a great environmental benefit.
However, I don't agree with extending the 4th rail further. The whole Chiltern network should be completely electrified with 25kV AC, with the 4th rail scrapped between Amersham and Harrow-on-the-Hill after the S-stock becomes life expired (which will be replaced with bi-mode trains afterwards), paid by the state.
And the Aylesbury operation should remain with Chiltern, as it goes too far out from London.
busestrains
On Moderation
Personally i think it would be better to electrify London Marylebone to Harrow On The Hill and Amersham to Aylesbury Vale Parkway with third rail and transfer the operation of all Amersham and Chesham services to Chiltern Railways instead. They could order some new third rail EMUs for this. Then the Metropolitan Line would continue running just the Uxbridge and Watford services.
bramling
Veteran Member
There are seven sidings south of Aylesbury station, plus one alongside the platforms. I would suggest most of the seven sidings would be required for S stocks, simply in order to support and start and finish of service without significant empty running (which would also disrupt engineering access).
This leaves Aylesbury depot itself for Chiltern, and the depot itself is tiny. It only works now by constant shunting around of units on a semi ad-hoc basis. I do not think the depot would be able to function with all or most of the sidings given over to S stock. On that basis I think a replacement Chiltern depot would be a must. To be fair, Aylesbury is already inadequate, and any Chiltern electrification would likely be accompanied by a new depot anywhere. However TFL aren’t going to pay for this unless there’s a benefit to London.
Yes, a bit like Elizabeth Line need 6 sidings at Maidenhead.
The best bet is property development on Aylesbury depot but Aylesbury is a bit far away (and of course even further under these proposals) from London for 'flats at the station' to make sense.
bramling
Veteran Member
Yes the property development idea would probably work. More interesting would be where a replacement Chiltern depot would be sited. Assuming Chiltern continues to be tipped towards being a London commuter operation, ideally you’d want it somewhere on the southern half of the route, so between Banbury and London. I seem to remember Chiltern did struggle to find space when they were looking to site what became their Wembley depot.
That seems to be the long and the short of it.
For one thing TfL can’t afford to run what it’s already in charge of. For another many of those suburban services actually extend beyond any sensible definition (note there are several!) of the “London boundary”. Why would TfL have any business operating services to Gravesend and Sevenoaks, for example?
As a regular user of suburban rail in London I fervently hope TfL (and the associated grandstanding and political footballism) doesn’t expand an inch beyond what it already controls, frankly!
Last edited:
miklcct
On Moderation
As a regular user of London Overground I hope TfL expand as far as possible in the London boundary. The dire state of Southern services is keeping me off moving to a more desirable area of London!
fishwomp
Member
Surely to reclaim its rightful ownership - the Met once went as far up the line as Verney Jct, and also ran the Quainton Road to Brill tramway - and these lines were both owned by London Underground and replete with London Transport branding of the era.
bramling
Veteran Member
There’s more chance of the District Line returning to Southend, which at least would provide a potential benefit to London in the form of a day out at the seaside. (I know Southend is a dump, but if one lives in Barking or Dagenham then it’s all relative).
Verney Junction has a row of houses and that’s about it, and the site of Brill station doesn’t even have that.
RobShipway
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 3,337
I think it better that the LU invest in getting Electric-Battery trains if they were to serve Aylesbury, but I cannot see LU having battery-electric trains for passenger use.
TfL wasn’t responsible for London Overground being created in the first instance, and if it disappeared tomorrow another body would manage it. The Overground is certainly useful, and a big improvement on what went before, but it’s also painfully slow and doesn’t really serve central areas.
Southern only serves a limited part of South London, and which Southern metro services are in a “dire state”? I’ve always found them perfectly acceptable. The metro services I use (not Southern but their immediately adjacent operator to the east) are extremely reliable, regular and take me straight to where I want to go. It really isn’t a case of “TfL good, TOCs bad”.
I remember making the (long) drive to Southend years ago and being so appalled by what we saw when we got there that we turned around and drove away again, without even getting out of the car!
Last edited:
miklcct
On Moderation
Sydenham - East Croydon: no direct train, one change with half-hour frequency or pay for tram fare
West Norwood - East Croydon: no direct train, again half-hour frequency with one change
Streatham - East Croydon: 3 trains per hour but at uneven frequency, with maximum wait half an hour
Balham - East Croydon: hourly only
Given that East Croydon is the hub where people change to long distance trains, but none of the local connections have a turn up and go frequency, I have really been put off.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Original Crossrail (going to Aylesbury) would have reduced the Met to Uxbridge and Watford only , (the latter of course not exactly a traffic hot spot , but there were half hearted hopes of a Croxley Link giving a modest boost to traffic options)
Crossrail would have wired Neasden South Junction (for the purpose of this debate) and to Chesham and Amersham / Aylesbury - detailed work showed the tight solum of the Met 4 tracking north of Harrow on the Hill to Rickmansworth would have been very challenging with adjacent 25kV and the remaining 4th rail towards Watford (Met) , whilst the good residents of Chesham objected to nasty overhead wires spoiling their bosky and rural route.
Detailed work was done on the wiring of this section , and yours truly walked the route from Ricky to Harrow one Sunday when there was an all line block for Met slow line trackwork. (with qualifed enginners)
Apparently the post war widening was done fairly economically (often using WW2 bomb rubble for some of the embankments) , giving issues on formation - let alone the tightness of the route for erecting OLE equipment and lots of overline bridges.
Mentioned before , but the traffic potential for 8 car 341 sets was a lot of service capacity north of Amersham , and the timetable options were reduced from a 12/12 split Thames Valley and "Chiltern /Met" over various iterations. More than a doubling of "cars per hour" from the then new Turbo service in the early 90's.
I could be wrong- was the London boundary not an issue regarding the proposed Croxley Link? The extent of the Bakerloo Line beyond Harrow has also been an 'issue' at times- see changes in the Tube Map over the years.
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Yes it was , which is why the Mayor cancelled further work (some had been done) , so if a couple of miles matter , then the chances of "reconquering" Aylesbury is a complete non starter. (I suspect LT as was were more than happy to divest themselves economically in the 1960's , if not emotionally for some)
Bakerloo
Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 20
S8 stock are excellent trains
However, central government is paying for the London-Amersham-Aylesbury diesel service (and track maintenance) at present, so presumably this money could be transferred to TfL. This then leaves the actual electrification cost, which central government could pay for as part of an upgrade (which they would have to do if the line was electrified to Network Rail standards).
If TfL is being expected to pay for the electrification, and the ongoing service/maintenance subsidies then, no, it is not going to happen. But it doesn't have to be on those terms.
- Status