Sudbury stations on the Chiltern line

[Mojo]

From a timetabling perspective, does anyone know why Chiltern Railways choose to provide an all day service to Sudbury Hill Harrow rather than Sudbury and Harrow Road? If they only agree to stop at one of the two stations I’m intrigued as to why it’s that way around.

Is there something about the line speed for passing trains that makes it less of a time penalty to call at Sudbury Hill Harrow, or is it to provide interchange with the Piccadilly line (Sudbury Hill counts as an OSI for Oyster/Contactless whereas Town does not)?

I’ve always found it a bit unusual given that Sudbury and Harrow Road is more central for the area and is located on perhaps what you could call the High Street or centre of the suburb. It’s also further away from the Underground (400m vs 160m). The housing density around Harrow Road is also much higher; there is a massive development of flats right next to the station whereas Sudbury Hill is largely lower rise flats or suburban houses. This probably leads to the next point, despite only having 4 trains into London in the am peak and 4 leaving, versus Sudbury Hill Harrow having 15/16 trains each way all throughout the day on weekdays, Harrow Road has over half the customer numbers.

 

[PeterC]

Written into the franchise perhaps?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Written into the franchise perhaps?

The National Rail Contract hasn't been published yet, but the franchise agreement only required three trains each way to call at Sudbury & Harrow Road (in the peak direction) and 15 total at Sudbury Hill between 0615 and 1915, including three each way in the peak direction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interchange onto the Tube perhaps? I think it's hard to justify these two even existing otherwise, with the Tube stations so nearby.

 

[Mojo]

The National Rail Contract hasn't been published yet, but the franchise agreement only required three trains each way to call at Sudbury & Harrow Road (in the peak direction) and 15 total at Sudbury Hill between 0615 and 1915, including three each way (in the peak direction.)

And in any case even if it were in the agreement - why is Sudbury Hill the one selected for the better service - where, in my opinion it would seem to make better sense for the other one? The only reason that I can think of is for LU interchange, although there are plenty of longer OSIs than the walk between Sudbury Tw and Sudbury & Harrow Rd. And how much demand would there be for interchange anyway?

 

[CyrusWuff]

The flats adjacent to Sudbury & Harrow Road are a relatively recent addition.

I suspect the additional calls at Sudbury Hill over Sudbury & Harrow Road are mostly "because that's what BR did", possibly with a side of the two Sudbury Hills being closer together than Sudbury & Harrow Road and Sudbury Town (though I would have thought interchange traffic would be minimal.)

 

[Bishopstone]

I have an ongoing quest to ride every TfL bus route, end to end, and in that context the 18 deposited me outside Sudbury & Harrow Road station, one recent Saturday. North-west London is the quadrant least familiar to me, so my spur of the moment plan to catch a Chiltern train back to Marylebone will sound naive: no trains at the weekend!

I had a mooch around the station, feeling a little vulnerable to being accosted, as the platforms are accessed via a subway then stairs, and I wasn’t confident that anguished screams would be heard over the din of Harrow Road, below! I didn’t linger for long.

I took a pleasant suburban walk to Greenford via Horsenden Hill, instead.

Later, I Googled both ‘Sudburys’ and came away with the same question as the OP, so this thread is well timed for me.

Sudbury Hill and Northolt Park have been added to my ‘to do’ list, and I will tick-off more bus routes at the same time.

 

[fgwrich]

Chiltern's treatment of it's inner London stations has always been somewhat odd, not of course helped by being constricted by a 2 track railway from Ruislip into Marylebone. IIRC, They chose to procure the 4 small 172 fleet (with their rapid acceleration over a Turbo) to give their inner London services an increased frequency, but ended up sending them out onto services like Oxford & Stratford Upon Avon, leaving Sudbury etc with it's poor frequencies.

 

[CyrusWuff]

If memory serves, the original plan for Evergreen 3 included a new Down side bay at Gerrards Cross, which would have facilitated a half hourly "Metro" service using the 172s. Sadly it was removed from scope due to cost concerns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Chiltern's treatment of it's inner London stations has always been somewhat odd, not of course helped by being constricted by a 2 track railway from Ruislip into Marylebone. IIRC, They chose to procure the 4 small 172 fleet (with their rapid acceleration over a Turbo) to give their inner London services an increased frequency, but ended up sending them out onto services like Oxford & Stratford Upon Avon, leaving Sudbury etc with it's poor frequencies.

Is this not really a classic case of "closing them causes ructions, so give them a derisory service"? They are so close to Tube stations that they really don't serve a purpose. Even most people will walk (or take a bus) 400m in order to have a Tube every 2-5 minutes (which is more likely to go near where they're going) rather than an hourly train. Using trains like that is the stuff of enthusiasts, not day to day passengers.

Northolt Park is no doubt useful being a long way from the Tube, and West Ruislip is a useful Tube interchange, but these two?

It is not dissimilar to the fact that the DLR extensions rendered Silvertown and North Woolwich basically pointless. Who but an enthusiast would use a rotting old train twice an hour when you have a brand-spanking-new DLR every few minutes?

 

[Mojo]

Is this not really a classic case of "closing them causes ructions, so give them a derisory service"? They are so close to Tube stations that they really don't serve a purpose. Even most people will walk (or take a bus) 400m in order to have a Tube every 2-5 minutes (which is more likely to go near where they're going) rather than an hourly train. Using trains like that is the stuff of enthusiasts, not day to day passengers.

With respect, you appear to be missing the purpose of this thread which is not to discuss why the stations have such a poor service (although said service is greatly improved from the early 2000s), but asking why the more useful station serving a busier area has a less frequent service than the station in a quieter location.

I suspect the poster above yours probably hits the nail on the head and suggests it’s an accident of history, and given Chiltern’s historical lack of interest in serving these inner London stations probably isn’t anything they’ve given the thought or time to looking into changing.

FWIW, the Underground in this area is not “every 2-5 minutes,” but every 10 minutes, although for a small part of both peaks trains can be every 5 minutes.

Chiltern’s inner suburban timetable is frankly bizarre and complicated, but I suppose it’s the best that can be done given they seem to rather focus on longer distance trips to Oxford and Birmingham. I’d hope that post HS2 there can be some changes to it, if nothing else at least to give some sort of reason for people in NW London and the southern Chilterns who will see no benefit but only disbenefits during construction and operation, but I’m not holding my breath. Probably worthy of discussion in the Speculative Ideas forum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With respect, you appear to be missing the purpose of this thread which is not to discuss why the stations have such a poor service (although said service is greatly improved from the early 2000s), but asking why the more useful station serving a busier area has a less frequent service than the station in a quieter location.

I suspect the poster above yours probably hits the nail on the head and suggests it’s an accident of history, and given Chiltern’s historical lack of interest in serving these inner London stations probably isn’t anything they’ve given the thought or time to looking into changing.

Or, bringing my post into it, that they are as they are for historical reasons, and Chiltern would quite rightly in my view want to completely close both as they are of very low value being so close to the Tube yet eat paths (and a good Tube interchange which is better-served also exists at West Ruislip), but the ructions caused by doing so would be unacceptable, so the easiest thing to do is to leave them as they are.

 

[fgwrich]

If memory serves, the original plan for Evergreen 3 included a new Down side bay at Gerrards Cross, which would have facilitated a half hourly "Metro" service using the 172s. Sadly it was removed from scope due to cost concerns.

Aha, that was it - Thanks. I couldn't remember if it the plans would have seen them run to Gerrards Cross or take over the High Wycombe shuttle. So all in all, the de-scoping of the Evergreen 3 plans left them with a micro fleet, and left the Inner London services with the odd frequencies we have today.

 

[Mojo]

Or, bringing my post into it, that they are as they are for historical reasons, and Chiltern would quite rightly in my view want to completely close both as they are of very low value being so close to the Tube yet eat paths (and a good Tube interchange which is better-served also exists at West Ruislip), but the ructions caused by doing so would be unacceptable, so the easiest thing to do is to leave them as they are.

I can’t imagine there is much demand for interchange at Sudbury (where would people be going to; Acton Town, possibly Hammersmith although that would probably be better served by a walk from Marylebone to Edgware Rd Met?)) but the interchange at West or South Ruislip goes to different places than the Piccadilly line, with the exception of the Park Royal area which is served by both.

 

[cle]

It's a tough one, because the Piccadilly branch there sucks, and takes forever to get anywhere unless it's Hammersmith. A good Chiltern service would see you in Marylebone in ~10 mins, which is great for that zone of London. But would eat up paths for the outer, more lucrative services they clearly are more dedicated to. The Park Royal interchange would have been a game changer, and so much upcoming Central Line capacity in West London - but here we are.

I think ultimately it would need to be four tracked (with a platform at Gerrards Cross, re-instated lines through Denham, Beaconsfield etc - and make it a four track trail at least until the famous Tesco tunnel - without that, it's not worth it as a metro service.

 

[sammyg901]

The Met line was disrupted last week and we got diverted via Princes Risborough non-stop to Aylesbury. We went out behind the Aylesbury stopper and I was reminded just how inflexible the line is - once you get past Ruislip there is nowhere for trains to (practically) pass until Princes Risborough (if going beyond). This does mean that Chiltern are very restricted in what they can do and rely on the seemingly complex skip stopping / "flighting" of trains especially in the peak to put together a timetable that balances everyones needs. I doubt any extra calls off peak would see much more usage and slows down the service for everyone else

 

[Watershed]

The Met line was disrupted last week and we got diverted via Princes Risborough non-stop to Aylesbury. We went out behind the Aylesbury stopper and I was reminded just how inflexible the line is - once you get past Ruislip there is nowhere for trains to (practically) pass until Princes Risborough (if going beyond). This does mean that Chiltern are very restricted in what they can do and rely on the seemingly complex skip stopping / "flighting" of trains especially in the peak to put together a timetable that balances everyones needs. I doubt any extra calls off peak would see much more usage and slows down the service for everyone else

In the Up direction, services can also be overtaken at High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross, by means of the stopper recessing in the Down platform. Obviously this requires the Down line to be clear for at least 10 minutes or so.

In the Down direction, services can terminate at either of those stations, though there is no centre turnback so there is a conflict either on arrival (Gerrards Cross, with the shunt to the siding) or departure (High Wycombe with the bay on the Down side).

But yes, the infrastructure is quite a constraint on the service options.

 

[CyrusWuff]

In the Down direction it's also possible to overtake between Neasden South Junction and Great Central Way Junction. Though again, this is less than ideal as it means blocking the Up Main in the process. As such, preferred passing locations South of Princes Risborough are South Ruislip (Down) and West Ruislip (Up) as they have Through Lines and the relevant platforms on a loop.

 

[Stephen1001]

Definitely not just a historical thing - until 2004, both Sudbury stations were peak hours only, and had been for around four decades before. So the improvement to one but not the other must have been a deliberate decision by Chiltern, although what it was based on I couldn't tell you.

 

[RPM]

In the Down direction it's also possible to overtake between Neasden South Junction and Great Central Way Junction. Though again, this is less than ideal as it means blocking the Up Main in the process. As such, preferred passing locations South of Princes Risborough are South Ruislip (Down) and West Ruislip (Up) as they have Through Lines and the relevant platforms on a loop.

West Ruislip loop is bidirectional, so can be used for passing up and down trains.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Apart from the Sudbury Hill BR-LT almost side-by-side interchange (of whatever value that is; presumably of some use for people from some areas of west London connecting to/from the Chiltern route), NB the actual name of the station - Sudbury Hill Harrow. Maybe that's the clue. If you want to use the Chiltern Line to/from Harrow (especially the historic centre, up on the hill itself), then that station gives you the better (of the two stations being compared) direct bus link, as well as the most direct walking/cycling route. And buses going the other way connect to a well-populated area around Whitton Avenue and towards Perivale. [Not to mention the joys of Horsenden Hill, as someone mentioned ... ah, such youthful memories!]

 

[anthony263]

Chiltern metro was the proposed service chiltern originally ordered the class 172’s for due to their acceleration allowing them to fit between their other services

 

[cle]

Perhaps if the wires came - and if phased one would assume to High Wycombe first - then a more metro service could be slotted in with faster accelerating stock and a timetable shuffle. And the Sudburys could either be served well, or cut.

Ultimately though, the Aylesbury via High Wycombe is a slow pattern right now (I would argue it should/could be quicker - especially as if MKC happens and it is relinked, you'd want a quicker service between Winslow/Aylesbury and HW), and there is likely demand for a third Oxford at a slower pattern (counter-demand).

And so Oxford would definitely be the next candidate for the wires to end, with 2-3tph and a need for wires towards Didcot! And also wiring a short bit of EWR

Heading up to Banbury gets messier, as you get into the Snow Hill line territory - which all need doing too but extend a lot.

 

[Route115?]

There wasn't much management interest in the inner stations when I worked there in the 90s and perhaps the attitude continues. I don't think that they understood the travelcard allocation system & wanted to increase the average journey length of passengers by concentrating on longer flows. It ought to be possible to increase services off-peak but as has been said there is a lack of flexibility & would require significant investment.

The passenger service requirement was based on the existing BR service at the time of franchsing & there was no desire to increase services at inner stations. West Ruislip only has a Sunday service every two hours these days which is bizarre but is what it was in 1995. The local MP for Uxbridge & South Ruislip (some guy called Johnson) seems more concerned with other parts of the country. Compare this with the likes of Andy Burnham who would de justice to the way a U.S. Senator would lobby for his patch.

I think that a half hourly local service would do very well, but even if you could fit in it, would be delayed by the slightest late running of other services.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Oversimplifying, but the basic issue is that increasing the ruling linespeed to 100mph most of the way from Wembley to High Wycombe has had the effect of decreasing capacity, as the 75mph 165s get in the way of the 100mph 168s and locos.

Pre-Covid, the flighting out of Marylebone was such that the Wycombe terminators got into the bay just in time for the following Birmingham to go through on the main line. Any additional calls on the stopper would break that.

 

[Watershed]

Oversimplifying, but the basic issue is that increasing the ruling linespeed to 100mph most of the way from Wembley to High Wycombe has had the effect of decreasing capacity, as the 75mph 165s get in the way of the 100mph 168s and locos.

Pre-Covid, the flighting out of Marylebone was such that the Wycombe terminators got into the bay just in time for the following Birmingham to go through on the main line. Any additional calls on the stopper would break that.

Indeed. Just about the only thing that would enable services to call more often would be electrification. The prospect of which still seems very distant.

 

[centraluser]

In the Up direction, services can also be overtaken at High Wycombe and Gerrards Cross, by means of the stopper recessing in the Down platform. Obviously this requires the Down line to be clear for at least 10 minutes or so.

The points north of High Wycombe are currently out of use and have been for quite a few weeks.

 

[Revilo]

There wasn't much management interest in the inner stations when I worked there in the 90s and perhaps the attitude continues. I don't think that they understood the travelcard allocation system & wanted to increase the average journey length of passengers by concentrating on longer flows. It ought to be possible to increase services off-peak but as has been said there is a lack of flexibility & would require significant investment.

The passenger service requirement was based on the existing BR service at the time of franchsing & there was no desire to increase services at inner stations. West Ruislip only has a Sunday service every two hours these days which is bizarre but is what it was in 1995. The local MP for Uxbridge & South Ruislip (some guy called Johnson) seems more concerned with other parts of the country. Compare this with the likes of Andy Burnham who would de justice to the way a U.S. Senator would lobby for his patch.

I think that a half hourly local service would do very well, but even if you could fit in it, would be delayed by the slightest late running of other services.

Doesn’t London have its own equivalent of Andy Burnham?