Should there be a frequent service linking Crossrail and the Chiltern line?

[cle]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-services-to-paddington.211441

Interesting as wasn't this exact movement (West Ealing to High Wycombe) planned as a replacement to the Greenford shuttle, connecting the Chiltern route with Crossrail? Shows how doable it is, and doubling up as the line's local service (which might enable more skip stopping) - might be appealing.

Useful for Heathrow connectivity too, as well as HS2 and London itself.

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting as wasn't this exact movement (West Ealing to High Wycombe) planned as a replacement to the Greenford shuttle, connecting the Chiltern route with Crossrail? Shows how doable it is, and doubling up as the line's local service (which might enable more skip stopping) - might be appealing.

Useful for Heathrow connectivity too, as well as HS2 and London itself.

I think there was a proposal a couple of years back to transfer the existing Greenford shuttle to Chiltern, something about removing GWR DMU dead mileage. But it was then decided transfer to Chiltern (or even to TfL) gave no operational advantages.

 

[adamskiodp]

How profitable is the Amersham line for Chiltern? How realistic would it be bringing back the original plans to have Crossrail to Aylesbury?

 

[Watershed]

How profitable is the Amersham line for Chiltern?

Only people with access to ORCATS, the system that distributes rail industry revenue, as well as Chiltern's detailed financials, would be able to tell you that with any certainty. No-one in the position to access those pieces of data is going to leak them. But overall, Chiltern's franchise has always been subsidised ever since privatisation, so profitable is probably the wrong word. Let alone right now.

The profitability of the line is, in a sense, irrelevant anyway. Lines don't receive services because they are going to be more or less profitable. When it comes to the cost: benefit analyses that determine these kinds of things, most of the benefits of new schemes/services don't come from fares revenue.

How realistic would it be bringing back the original plans to have Crossrail to Aylesbury?

The nearest you are possibly going to get is increased/diverted Chiltern services terminating at Old Oak Common, say in 10 or 15 years' time. Through services would likely require grade separation at Old Oak Common, electrification and remodelling of the Chiltern lines... Rather expensive for not a great deal of benefit.

 

[mr_jrt]

I thought Chiltern was one of the few lines that managed to actually pay a premium back to the treasury?

 

[Watershed]

I thought Chiltern was one of the few lines that managed to actually pay a premium back to the treasury?

The portion of the Treasury's grant to Network Rail which pays for Chiltern's network to be maintained was (up until Covid) approximately twice their franchise premium. So they are still subsidised when you net things out. Only SWT, c2c and VTEC ever managed to make a net contribution to the Treasury, and of course for the foreseeable it is a different story altogether.

 

[cle]

If OOC is hugely expensive (reconnecting and new bays, as mentioned) - then perhaps this West Ealing to Chiltern service isn't so bad.

It could be a trial extension of the existing Greenford, and run up to High Wycombe. No Greenford any more unfortunately (and Hanwell area folks do use it to access the Central line at Greenford) - so that would need to be weighed up.

 

[mr_jrt]

Presumably you could just reinstate some Greenford platforms on the NNML tracks?

 

[Non Multi]

Presumably you could just reinstate some Greenford platforms on the NNML tracks?

Those derelict platforms belong to the mainline station that was closed in 1963. Apparently there is a small subway that's closed off between the LU station to these old platforms.

Neither of those platform faces meet today's singled line; so either 1 platform would have to be widened (as has happened elsewhere on the Chiltern route), or the track would need to be slewed to meet the platform.

 

[Horizon22]

Well the lines that have been cut off on NWML should be used for something. There's a track bed there so a fast service into Old Oak Common could work, either if its not many tph. Either that or use it as a dedicated cycle-way from NW London into Old Oak Common.

Regarding a terminating platform, OOC is supposed to have 8 platforms and there are currently 4 running lines (+ a reception line) so it is not beyond the realms of possibility to have a terminating platform, although not ideal. Option 20 in the West Midlands and Chilterns Route Study in 2017 suggested the following:

• Upgrade of the Wycombe line between Northolt Junction and Old Oak Common and new terminus platform in the Old Oak Common development area.
• double tracking and linespeed enhancement
• remodelling of Northolt Junction
• new platforms in the Old Oak Common station area

 

[pdeaves]

Old Oak Common station is being designed in such a way as to allow easy addition of 'Chiltern' platforms later on if required (they aren't there from day 1).

 

[4-SUB 4732]

What is something of a shame is that with project Evergreen, Northolt Jn / South Ruislip was upgraded to such an extent that regular services to / from the New North would occupy the layout too much and make pathing difficult for all concerned!

Realistically, the smartest thing to do (prepares for serious denigration) would be some form of good interchange to the Central line, in turn with more trains stopping at West Ruislip on the Chiltern route as a key interchange?

 

[mr_jrt]

The old down flyover is still there at Northolt, used as a loop for overtaking. The common sense thing to do would be to reinstate the 4 track section through Ruislip and upgrade the NNML to a 2 platform terminus at OOC and route the fast Chiltern services there, so there are no conflicts at Northolt as the slow stoppers serving South Ruislip can use the flyover without penalty.

 

[The Planner]

The old down flyover is still there at Northolt, used as a loop for overtaking. The common sense thing to do would be to reinstate the 4 track section through Ruislip and upgrade the NNML to a 2 platform terminus at OOC and route the fast Chiltern services there, so there are no conflicts at Northolt as the slow stoppers serving South Ruislip can use the flyover without penalty.

How are you solving the up clash?

 

[mr_jrt]

Forgive me, but which up clash is that? Given 4 tracks between West Ruislip and Northolt Junction, the OOC services would run on the centre lines and the Marylebone on the outer ones, so the only interaction with the line to Marylebone would be where they split, be that at West Ruislip, or further west.

 

[CyrusWuff]

With the current layout, trains heading towards Greenford have to run wrong line from a point between West Ruislip and Ruislip Gardens and through the Down platform at South Ruislip to access the branch.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

With the current layout, trains heading towards Greenford have to run wrong line from a point between West Ruislip and Ruislip Gardens and through the Down platform at South Ruislip to access the branch.

Correct. A horrid clash.

 

[The Planner]

Forgive me, but which up clash is that? Given 4 tracks between West Ruislip and Northolt Junction, the OOC services would run on the centre lines and the Marylebone on the outer ones, so the only interaction with the line to Marylebone would be where they split, be that at West Ruislip, or further west.

So presumably you get rid of the new down fast line, how do you deal with the waste terminal? close it?

 

[stuu]

A frequent service linking Crossrail and the chiltern line already exists: its called the Bakerloo line

 

[mr_jrt]

So presumably you get rid of the new down fast line, how do you deal with the waste terminal? close it?

Not necessarily. Depends if there is a desire to have some fast services continue to use Marylebone. If not, then sure, take it out. Otherwise, it creates a conflict that's probably manageable enough if pathed suitably.
Here's a rough sketch (apoligies to Carto.Metro):


I've left all options on a single (cluttered!) image to save taking up too much space in the thread, but gist is:

• You can keep the down fast Marylebone if you can manage the conflicts with the up OOC and the waste terminal (which shouldn't be too hard)
• Access to the waste depot can be retained by branching off the up Marylebone and/or connecting to the down line from Marylebone.
• Access from the waste depot can be retained by tweaking the diveunder to add a connecting line to the down Northolt loop and/or connecting to the up Marylebone line.
• ...or you close the facility.

Nothing insurmountable!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Depends if there is a desire to have some fast services continue to use Marylebone.

There's no "if" about it except in the imagination of some railway enthusiasts. The people who use trains to and from Marylebone will have little patience with proposals to re-route them to Old Oak.

 

[Watershed]

There's no "if" about it except in the imagination of some railway enthusiasts. The people who use trains to and from Marylebone will have little patience with proposals to re-route them to Old Oak.

Perhaps upon first hearing about the proposals, yes, but for most passengers, their destination will not be within walking distance of Marylebone. Quite a lot will need to take the Tube onwards, which means either taking the Bakerloo line, which has its own well-known limitations, or walking to Baker Street.

Apart from HS2, Old Oak Common offers one-change connectivity to far more of London and the southeast, in a similar, if not lower journey time - particularly so if the trains from the eastern side of Crossrail that are currently scheduled to terminate at Paddington are extended to Old Oak Common.

It is unlikely there will ever be enough Chiltern platforms at Old Oak Common for all current or future Marylebone services, so there will likely always be services to Marylebone. There isn't really much potential for expansion at Marylebone, and its operation is already tightly constrained by the current optimised layout.

In the medium to long term, something like Old Oak Common is more than a "nice to have".

 

[mr_jrt]

One detail I didn't state was that by "fast services continue to use Marylebone" I meant fast services that need the speed profile the new down fast line provides. Obviously, any number could use the diveunder as previous, and if 80% of the services went to OOC at full speed and only 20% had to reduce speed for the diveunder that's still not so bad, all things considered. Getting those fast services away from Marylebone also means you can increase metro services on the section between Northolt and Neasden, should it be desirable to do so (I'm not sure that it is, but still).