Reinstating passing loops on the Chiltern Sudbury stations

[sad1e]

Reinstating these passing loops would allow for a much better service to the Chiltern Sudbury stations with minimal investment. From my trip to the Chiltern Sudbury stations today there seems to be accommodation in the bridges by the Sudburys. Any idea why this hasn't been done ?

 

[stuu]

Reinstating these passing loops would allow for a much better service to the Chiltern Sudbury station's with minimal investment. From my trip to the Chiltern Sudbury station's today there seems to be accommodation in the bridges by the Sudbury's. Any idea why this hasn't been done ?

Define "minimal". Structures, trackworks, signalling, required trains (including stabling and maintenance facilities)

 

[sad1e]

Define "minimal". Structures, trackworks, signalling, required trains (including stabling and maintenance facilities)

No work on any bridges would need to be done , all that would need to be done is moving the platforms at Sudbury harrow road to the outside of the lines instead of the inside. And bring the old platforms back into use at Sudbury harrow hill (the current in use platforms are from the 1980s, built on the position of the loops) although the original platforms still exist although overgrown behind the current ones.

All of that and relaying the tracks for the loop's.

So quite minimal work to be able to bring a lot more intensive service to the very poorly served Chiltern Sudbury station's.

 

[Zomboid]

Just doing platform loops will result in long station dwell times to allow a train behind to overtake. The line out of Marylebone isn't that intensively used that a fast train would need to leave so close behind as to catch up by Sudbury.

And if a short length of 4 tracking is needed, South Ruislip to West Ruislip would seem a more obvious place to put it.

 

[The Planner]

No work on any bridges would need to be done , all that would need to be done is moving the platforms at Sudbury harrow road to the outside of the lines instead of the inside. And bring the old platforms back into use at Sudbury harrow hill (the current in use platforms are from the 1980s, built on the position of the loops) although the original platforms still exist although overgrown behind the current ones.

All of that and relaying the tracks for the loop's.

So quite minimal work to be able to bring a lot more intensive service to the very poorly served Chiltern Sudbury station's.

What improvements would it allow, and would the loops actually be in the right place? You have a loop on the up at West Ruislip and the old down line at South Ruislip. As @Zomboid notes, you would be sitting at a Sudbury station for a while as you now have approach control into the loop, as well as being 3 minutes minimum infront of the train behind you amd not being able to leave until at least 2 minutes after its passed you. You are looking at a minimum of 5 minutes penalty.

 

[Zomboid]

I suppose the issue with those stations between Wembley and Ruislip is that they need to be served a lot more frequently (turn up and go levels) to be much use in the London direction, and the Sudbury pair at least are very close to the Piccadilly line.

To do that without ruining the longer distance services would probably mean 4 tracking the lot. Maybe when/ if some services are diverted to OOC there might be some capacity for more station calls along that section.

 

[150219]

The landscape of Sudbury & Harrow Road has significantly changed since the original station layout has been dispensed with. There have been progressive issues with the stability of the embankments at these locations. The pre-evergreen elevated signal had extra ties to the ground to prevent it from listing.

There have been issues with drainage at Sudbury Hill, which also means that there would need to be changes to the culverts to bring it back to 4-track condition.

The need to do so would be for what benefit. With the line speed upgrade from Evergreen and the new Down Main at Northolt Park Junction, along with the crossover at Great Central Way Junction, these take care of a lot of regulating decisions that need to be made on the down.

 

[Route115?]

As mentioned, you really want a dynamic loop, some up trains spend a lot of time at West Ruislip, so four tracking West Ruislip to South Ruislip makes more sense. I've often wondered about double tracking from South Ruislip to Old Oak and running into Paddington. At one stage this stretch of track was well maintained for the one train in each direction per day, and there was plenty of track capacity, and you could have built additional platforms at Paddington goods shed. This area has been developed, the Elizabeth Line has arrived on the scene and there are more trains into Paddington mainline, so its no longer as simple.

There was a proposal for Chiltern Metro with an enhanced service at inner stations which I thought attractive. The management at the time were not at all interested in the inner stations. (Mind you, when I joined the railway in 1981 there was talk of closing Marylebone station and making it a bus way. Luckily that is now off the table.)

 

[Zomboid]

If I were to get my crayons out I'd close one of the Sudbury stations and start actually serving the other primarily as a Piccadilly line interchange.

I don't know what other infrastructure would be needed to support that, but a longer down loop from Northolt to West Ruislip ought to make space in the down direction to allow an overtake. I don't know where an up loop would be needed, but it seems like there once was 4 tracks along that bit so the bridges look wide enough at least.

 

[30907]

I don't know what other infrastructure would be needed to support that, but a longer down loop from Northolt to West Ruislip ought to make space in the down direction to allow an overtake. I don't know where an up loop would be needed, but it seems like there once was 4 tracks along that bit so the bridges look wide enough at least.

The Ruislips were both 4-track so it would be theoretically possible to reinstate that. However, it looks as though one platform at each station has been built out to match the present 3-track layout.
It might be easier to provide a reversible through line on that section, which would mostly or entirely be used in the peak flow direction.

 

[150219]

It was originally planned in Evergreen to 4-track West to South Ruislip, which would have meant reinstating the lines where the Down Platform is at West and the Up at South. It was also planned to extend the platforms too.

With the space available now, it might be possible to extend the old Down Platform line from South Ruislip out to Ruislip Gardens, but it wouldn't give you much more than you've already got.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reinstating these passing loops would allow for a much better service to the Chiltern Sudbury stations with minimal investment. From my trip to the Chiltern Sudbury stations today there seems to be accommodation in the bridges by the Sudburys. Any idea why this hasn't been done ?

As is often the case for such ideas, this is a solution to an undefined problem.

Perhaps we should start with the question - “What transport problem are we trying to solve?”

Once we have the answer to that question, we can develop some potential service specifications that solve that problem; and then we can look at what is needed from a rolling stock and infrastructure perspective to deliver the service specification.

 

[sad1e]

As is often the case for such ideas, this is a solution to an undefined problem.

Perhaps we should start with the question - “What transport problem are we trying to solve?”

Once we have the answer to that question, we can develop some potential service specifications that solve that problem; and then we can look at what is needed from a rolling stock and infrastructure perspective to deliver the service specification.

The problem is that the Chiltern inner suburban station's have a unusable frequency of 1tph or less when it comes to, harrow road. Reinstating these loops would make the stations a lot more attractive to passengers as you would be able to let expresses pass as you stopped a stopper at the station.

 

[Bald Rick]

The problem is that the Chiltern inner suburban station's have a unusable frequency of 1tph or less when it comes to, harrow road. Reinstating these loops would make the stations a lot more attractive to passengers as you would be able to let expresses pass as you stopped a stopper at the station.

That’s not (quite) a transport problem.

The problem could be:

”There is significant unmet demand between Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Wembley Park & Marylebone. How can the frequency be increased in the best value for money way?”

Or

”The generalised journey time between Sudbury / Harrow and central London are long; how can it be reduced?”

I know that area well and I don’t believe (1) above is true. (2) is clearly an issue.

Therefore what service options are there to improve generalised journey times for those two stations, and whatis the value for money for those options?

 

[150219]

Both Sudbury's are well served by inner London transport options.

If you were providing a slower service to Northolt Park from Marylebone and Wembley Stadium, this might actively drive away custom from people who do use that service now.

I can't say the the increase of Sudbury Hill station stops from the previous peak time only service has led to a substantial increase is usage, because it's already well served elsewhere. I have used the bus myself to make that journey, because it was easier to do so.

 

[Zomboid]

Well Sudbury Hill is 30 minutes from Earls Court by Piccadilly line but 12 minutes from Marylebone with stops at Wembley and S&HR. So if a suitably frequent service were provided then you'd think that there might be some demand for getting to the edge of Zone 1 in 1/3 of the time. The issue is how to provide that without getting in the way of the longer distance services.

Providing an opportunity for a dynamic overtake somewhere along the route of a Gerrard's Cross/ High Wycombe stopper would go some way to achieving that, and the proposal to divert some trains to OOC would also help. That could also allow more trains to stop at Northolt Park, which doesn't have an adjacent tube station.

To really offer much benefit to passengers who aren't used to needing a timetable I'd say the service would need to be an evenly spaced 4tph at least.

 

[JohnRegular]

If I were to get my crayons out I'd close one of the Sudbury stations and start actually serving the other primarily as a Piccadilly line interchange.

From the outside looking in, this seems entirely sensible, costs and difficulties associated with closure notwithstanding.

How frequent a service could be provided at the remaining station (and/or Wembley Stadium) if that happened, though? I have no idea but my suspicion is not as frequent as one might hope.

 

[Mgameing123]

That’s not (quite) a transport problem.

The problem could be:

”There is significant unmet demand between Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Wembley Park & Marylebone. How can the frequency be increased in the best value for money way?”

Or

”The generalised journey time between Sudbury / Harrow and central London are long; how can it be reduced?”

I know that area well and I don’t believe (1) above is true. (2) is clearly an issue.

Therefore what service options are there to improve generalised journey times for those two stations, and whatis the value for money for those options?

Sudbury and West Hampstead needs better rail connections between each other and the journey time on the Piccadilly Line to Central London is too long.

 

[Class15]

Sudbury and West Hampstead needs better rail connections between each other and the journey time on the Piccadilly Line to Central London is too long.

Why West Hampstead?

 

[miklcct]

Why West Hampstead?

To change to orbital services

 

[Zomboid]

Why not? It's a major transport interchange in NW London that is hard to get to from the Sudbury area. Though without putting platforms on the line between Neasden and Marylebone I'm not sure what the solution might be to get there, whether trains could call in Sudbury or not.

 

[sad1e]

Why not? It's a major transport interchange in NW London that is hard to get to from the Sudbury area. Though without putting platforms on the line between Neasden and Marylebone I'm not sure what the solution might be to get there, whether trains could call in Sudbury or not.

It's now pretty impossible to put platforms on the met line or CML at West Hampstead due to all of the housing development that has sprung up on ex railway land around West Hampstead.
Although in the late 2000's Chiltern had a plan to use that railway land to build plats for the met line and CML at West Hampstead but in the end that fell through due to the financial crash of 2008.
Quite a shame it never got built to be honest.

 

[BlueLeanie]

At this point, wouldn't electrifying the Chiltern mainline, reinstating through loops at Beaconsfield, and a total reconfigure of High Wycombe be a more useful outcome?

 

[The Planner]

At this point, wouldn't electrifying the Chiltern mainline, reinstating through loops at Beaconsfield, and a total reconfigure of High Wycombe be a more useful outcome?

The old loops were just too short. Also you would only put them back of they allowed a specific train service spec/timetable to run. Don't assume what was there 50 years ago is suitable now.

 

[cle]

It would need to be a much longer section of four track to be worth it. Loops to ‘pull in’ are best for freight.

So South Ruislip to the Gerrards Cross tunnel for instance, including a rebuild of Denham. Would actually enable dynamic passing / calling.

 

[Bald Rick]

So South Ruislip to the Gerrards Cross tunnel for instance, including a rebuild of Denham. Would actually enable dynamic passing / calling.

Small matter of the M25, and, err, HS2 in the way!

 

[swt_passenger]

It's now pretty impossible to put platforms on the met line or CML at West Hampstead due to all of the housing development that has sprung up on ex railway land around West Hampstead.
Although in the late 2000's Chiltern had a plan to use that railway land to build plats for the met line and CML at West Hampstead but in the end that fell through due to the financial crash of 2008.
Quite a shame it never got built to be honest.

It was just a bit earlier, the proposals for West Hampstead interchange were publicised in 2003, but IIRC it was already cancelled as far as Chiltern were concerned by 2007.

 

[mr_jrt]

Years ago I had a peek at a load of old maps to ascertain just how much of the line was ever four tracked (or passively provided for it) at its maximum extent. From what I recall, I think it went, at best, some way short of the eastern portal of the South Harrow tunnel.

My musing was along the lines of serving the line as a branch of the Jubilee line from Neasden, but obviously that would need to be separate pairs of tracks (and have grade separation at Neasden). Basic concept was trying to provide better local connectivity, as the problem with the stations is they're only really useful for either going west to Northolt or Ruislip, or all the way to Marylebone, and there are much better options for those given the low service frequency.

 

[HSTEd]

Years ago I had a peek at a load of old maps to ascertain just how much of the line was ever four tracked (or passively provided for it) at its maximum extent. From what I recall, I think it went, at best, some way short of the eastern portal of the South Harrow tunnel.

My musing was along the lines of serving the line as a branch of the Jubilee line from Neasden, but obviously that would need to be separate pairs of tracks (and have grade separation at Neasden). Basic concept was trying to provide better local connectivity, as the problem with the stations is they're only really useful for either going west to Northolt or Ruislip, or all the way to Marylebone, and there are much better options for those given the low service frequency.

Well, the ultimate heresy would be to serve these stations with the Jubille Line out to Northolt or South Ruislip, and then redirect all outer Chiltern traffic into the passively provided for Chiltern terminus at Old Oak Common (assuming that provision actually occured).

Sure, that loses access to Marylebone, but is Marylebone really a particularly attractive terminus?

 

[Zomboid]

Well, the ultimate heresy would be to serve these stations with the Jubille Line out to Northolt or South Ruislip, and then redirect all outer Chiltern traffic into the passively provided for Chiltern terminus at Old Oak Common (assuming that provision actually occured).

Sure, that loses access to Marylebone, but is Marylebone really a particularly attractive terminus?

I don't think there's sufficient passive provision at OOC for that. Though what infrastructure would be needed to send the Chiltern services into Paddington now crossrail has taken most of the locals?