The best way to electrify the Chiltern Network and the Snow Hill Lines

[miklcct]

Aylesbury line trains can already be accommodated as they are now. It isn't a problem, it's only 2tph peak, 1tph off peak of relatively short trains. The reason for moving them to LU and Baker St would be so it can be 4-rail electrified throughout.

If the whole of Aylesbury line is transferred back to TfL, I suggest the line to be electrified with 25 kV, using new bi-mode trains with 2+2 regional style seating and toilets, which do not run beyond Baker Street.

 

[Trainbike46]

If the whole of Aylesbury line is transferred back to TfL, I suggest the line to be electrified with 25 kV, using new bi-mode trains with 2+2 regional style seating and toilets, which do not run beyond Baker Street.

If you do that, there is no reason to transfer it to TfL - the main reason to do that would be to keep the 4th rail infrastructure and trains within a single body, if you go OHLE anyway, you might as well keep it in the national rail network

 

[HSTEd]

If the whole of Aylesbury line is transferred back to TfL, I suggest the line to be electrified with 25 kV, using new bi-mode trains with 2+2 regional style seating and toilets, which do not run beyond Baker Street.

What would the advantage of using 25kV north of Amersham be in such a scenario?
It just imposes dual voltage trains on London Underground to little advantage.

And toilets are likely impractical as it would require a whole new depot with facilities found nowhere else on LU.

It would be cheaper to ensure toilets remain open at Amersham et al until after the last arrival/departure.

 

[Elecman]

4th rail is not "absolutely lethal". It's specifically designed not to be by having a positive and negative rail, so unless you bridge the two you don't get the full belt. That's probably one key reason it's still allowed.

420-500 volts dc is till lethal never mind the 630-750 accross both rails

 

[renegademaster]

Fair point. I did actually know that! Was a silly thing for me to say. Point was more that urban lines are a lot more secure than rural ones, as a general rule, by virtue of them being in tunnels, on viaducts, well fenced off, and just so busy it makes trying to gain unauthorised access pretty unattractive.

Most of the danger than ORR cites is urban trespass, I doubt many people in leafy Sussex get zapped

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think if I were designing a rolling programme of electrification, the first bit of the Chiltern Main Line that would get wired would be the middle section between Banbury and Leamington, as a result of wiring Didcot-Oxford and extending that to Coventry. Reading-Basingstoke would need doing at around the same time, and this would allow XC (who I seem to recall reading somewhere are planning to re-route all their Reading/Bournmouth services via Coventry) to replace Voyagers on Manchester-Bournemouth with dual-voltage EMUs, avoiding the need for 3rd-rail/OHLE/diesel tri-modes.

 

[cle]

I think if I were designing a rolling programme of electrification, the first bit of the Chiltern Main Line that would get wired would be the middle section between Banbury and Leamington, as a result of wiring Didcot-Oxford and extending that to Coventry. Reading-Basingstoke would need doing at around the same time, and this would allow XC (who I seem to recall reading somewhere are planning to re-route all their Reading/Bournmouth services via Coventry) to replace Voyagers on Manchester-Bournemouth with dual-voltage EMUs, avoiding the need for 3rd-rail/OHLE/diesel tri-modes.

People often talk about the Coventry re-route, so both 2tph run there - but I'm not 100% sure what is preventing it.

That would allow the Oxford-Moor St hourly, which is much needed for Oxford-B'ham demand.

Didcot-Coventry would be a good place to start, for sure. Didcot-Bletchley also gives immediate, fully electric released services (by when it is done) - and an electric freight/XC option. From Bicester, getting to Marylebone next probably frees up the most tph. And would speed those metro journeys up a lot, the new timetable might be much better (faster journeys / more frequency even)

 

[Energy]

People often talk about the Coventry re-route, so both 2tph run there - but I'm not 100% sure what is preventing it.

Milverton (near Leamington Spa) - Kenilworth Jcn will need redoubling. Currently its single track from Milverton to the outskirts of Coventry, with a passing loop at Kenilworth Jcn.

 

[The Planner]

People often talk about the Coventry re-route, so both 2tph run there - but I'm not 100% sure what is preventing it.

That would allow the Oxford-Moor St hourly, which is much needed for Oxford-B'ham demand.

Milverton (near Leamington Spa) - Kenilworth Jcn will need redoubling. Currently its single track from Milverton to the outskirts of Coventry, with a passing loop at Kenilworth Jcn.

That and the fact you can't fit it along the Cov corridor until its recast.