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

[Mag_seven]

If anyone wants to discuss buses in Buckinghamshire then they are welcome to start a new thread (or use an existing one if there is one) in the buses section.

 

[12LDA28C]

Don't worry! TfL has no intention of going back to Aylesbury. They're interested in empire expansion only when there's big money to be captured; e.g. to Reading, Shenfield or Chingford. Off peak, Chiltern's service to Aylesbury via Amersham is a two-car train every half hour. There's no big money there.

Not quite. 2, 3, 4 or 5-car train depending on time of day and day of the week with 3-cars being most common.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not quite. 2, 3, 4 or 5-car train depending on time of day and day of the week with 3-cars being most common.

Off peak on weekdays it's mostly 2-car. (I think you may have missed that bit - you didn't highlight it). There's some leisure usage on weekends but the traffic on it is almost all commuters and it's very quiet at other times. A lot of people prefer to drive to Tring as the total overall journey time can be slightly quicker (certainly isn't slower) and there's 4tph rather than 2.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Unless they'd done another "Metroland" and created the demand of course!

"Metroland" had run it's course by 1938 , and the Abercrombie report of 1944 and the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 saw to it as the end of limitless suburbia.

 

[12LDA28C]

Off peak on weekdays it's mostly 2-car. (I think you may have missed that bit - you didn't highlight it). There's some leisure usage on weekends but the traffic on it is almost all commuters and it's very quiet at other times. A lot of people prefer to drive to Tring as the total overall journey time can be slightly quicker (certainly isn't slower) and there's 4tph rather than 2.

It's really not. As an example today:

0956 MYB - AVP 165038 (3-car)
1027 MYB - AYS 165019/026 (4-car)
1057 MYB - AVP 165035 (3-car)
1157 MYB - AVP 165039 (3-car)
1257 MYB - AVP 165033 (3-car)
1327 MYB - AYS 165027 (2-car)
1357 MYB - AVP 165037 (3-car)
1427 MYB - AYS 165015 (2-car) (vice 3-car booked)
1457 MYB - AVP 165011/018 (4-car)
1527 MYB - AYS 165012 (2-car)
1557 MYB - AYS 165038 (3-car)


11 trains with only 3 running as 2-cars and one of those was shortformed vice the diagrammed 3-car.

 

[HSTEd]

They wouldn't be dumped at Marylebone. Those that need to would interchange to the Met. Easily at Harrow, mildly more fancifully at Wembley Park or Neasden, or more ideally, abet rather fancifully, at a rebuilt West Hampstead.

I don't see why this solution is preferable to simply extending the Met.

It just forces an additional change at Harrow or wherever to little advantage.

Why is a train to Marylebone with a change at Harrow to reach most destinations superior to a train to Baker Street/beyond?
The absolute worst that can happen from moving the traffic to Baker Street is adding a 400m walk to a journey that ends adjacent to Marylebone.
Virtually everyone else strongly benefits.

Splitting service on the Aylesbury line over two termini doesn't seem to serve any reasonable purpose, and spending hundreds of millions of pounds (the cost of the full 25kV scheme above a four rail scheme) to avoid consolidation strikes me as insane.

EDIT:
The non-stop Harrow on the Hill-MArylebone journey takes ~17 12 minutes. The Harrow on the Hill-Baker Street journey takes 20 minutes, with five four stops! With fewer stops the journey time is shorter at around 17-18 minutes.
EDIT #2:
Corrected the times, both were too long.

 

[cle]

A dialled down version of the Met plan could be:

retro-fit some S stock to longer distance seats, space - run 2-4tph to Aylesbury, maybe to Chesham too
use the two outer terminal bays at Baker St
send Uxbridge/Watfords/Amersham slows through the 'core'

rather than severing the Met from the SSL core at Baker St. But Aylesbury services don't run through.

And it still frees up Marylebone platforms and paths, to do more with (4tph local HW? 4tph to Oxford? Hourly Stratford uA?)

 

[778]

The options for the Aylesbury Line are almost certainly batteries, Metropolitan line conversion or closure.

Why would closure be an option?

I think the Metropolitan Railway (or London Transport) did have plans to electrify the line to Aylesbury in the 1930s but WW2 put a stop to that.

 

[eldomtom2]

It's worth bearing in mind that Chiltern is about ten minutes faster between Amersham and Harrow-on-the-Hill then the Met. If the Met took over all services to Aylesbury, you'd probably want to have the semi-fasts and fasts running in both directions all day.

 

[mr_jrt]

I don't see why this solution is preferable to simply extending the Met.

It just forces an additional change at Harrow or wherever to little advantage.

Why is a train to Marylebone with a change at Harrow to reach most destinations superior to a train to Baker Street/beyond?
The absolute worst that can happen from moving the traffic to Baker Street is adding a 400m walk to a journey that ends adjacent to Marylebone.
Virtually everyone else strongly benefits.

Splitting service on the Aylesbury line over two termini doesn't seem to serve any reasonable purpose, and spending hundreds of millions of pounds (the cost of the full 25kV scheme above a four rail scheme) to avoid consolidation strikes me as insane.

EDIT:
The non-stop Harrow on the Hill-MArylebone journey takes ~17 12 minutes. The Harrow on the Hill-Baker Street journey takes 20 minutes, with five four stops! With fewer stops the journey time is shorter at around 17-18 minutes.
EDIT #2:
Corrected the times, both were too long.

The NR solution is better because you get much better outcomes from having the option to increase both line speed and platform length. The WCML cannot handle everything. There comes a point when improving the Chiltern route is more pragmatic to handle growth. Segregate the routes, increase line speed to 90/100 mph, and use a mainstream electrification standard so rolling stock is cheaper to procure and maintain rather than perpetuating a Victorian bodge job. Let TfL focus on what they do best - providing metro all stations stopping services.

Quite aside from the fact that top contact 3rd and 4th rail is absolutely lethal whose use should be minimised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The NR solution is better because you get much better outcomes from having the option to increase both line speed and platform length. The WCML cannot handle everything. There comes a point when improving the Chiltern route is more pragmatic to handle growth. Segregate the routes, increase line speed to 90/100 mph, and use a mainstream electrification standard so rolling stock is cheaper to procure and maintain rather than perpetuating a Victorian bodge job. Let TfL focus on what they do best - providing metro all stations stopping services.

The main Chiltern line, yes. But Aylesbury? Unless you have a massive programme of housebuilding to significantly increase the size of the towns along the way, it's never going to be anything more than a quirky country branch line mostly for posh commuters, a bit like a smaller scale version of East Grinstead, Uckfield or something but without the demand that picks up on the way past East Croydon.

Quite aside from the fact that top contact 3rd and 4th rail is absolutely lethal whose use should be minimised.

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.

 

[HSTEd]

The NR solution is better because you get much better outcomes from having the option to increase both line speed and platform length. The WCML cannot handle everything. There comes a point when improving the Chiltern route is more pragmatic to handle growth. Segregate the routes, increase line speed to 90/100 mph, and use a mainstream electrification standard so rolling stock is cheaper to procure and maintain rather than perpetuating a Victorian bodge job. Let TfL focus on what they do best - providing metro all stations stopping services.

But are we really talking about the Chiltern Line?
We are talking about a branch line that happens to operate into Marylebone, it's arguably less a part of the Chiltern Main Line than the Watford DCs are a part of the WCML. At least the Watford DCs end up next to the WCML rather than several miles away.

Transferring Aylesbury to the Met would allow Marylebone's very limited capacity to focus on the Chiltern Main Line, providing more capacity for that route.
The Metropolitan line is apparently very popular with people able to chose between it and chiltern, the NR option gets beaten handily by the Met at all shared stops except Amersham, where it manages a near draw.
Even the stations beyond Amersham add up to about half of Amersham's combined passenger figures!

Transferring to the Met is almost certain to be a lot cheaper in capital terms, ~45 track kilometres of four rail electrification (50 ish for Aylesbury Vale Parkway) or ~110/115 track kilometres of 25kV installation, measuring from the CML divergence.
The 25kV installation isn't going to get you much change out of £500m based on recent MML costings.

You'd have to buy a lot of marginally cheaper stock to make good that difference. S-Stock is hardly a small fleet, and a significant fraction of all UK rail vehicles are built for four rail operation (4179 vehicles, about a fifth of all UK passenger rail vehicles).

Quite aside from the fact that top contact 3rd and 4th rail is absolutely lethal whose use should be minimised.

And yet ONR has not issued a presumption against it, as it has done for Network rail third rail installations.
London Underground working practices are considered to be effective at mitigating the risk from such installations.

 

[Mgameing123]

Off peak on weekdays it's mostly 2-car. (I think you may have missed that bit - you didn't highlight it). There's some leisure usage on weekends but the traffic on it is almost all commuters and it's very quiet at other times. A lot of people prefer to drive to Tring as the total overall journey time can be slightly quicker (certainly isn't slower) and there's 4tph rather than 2.

Wrong you got it all wrong. It’s 5 car off peak and 2 car at the peak. At peak you will just be standing l.

But are we really talking about the Chiltern Line?
We are talking about a branch line that happens to operate into Marylebone, it's arguably less a part of the Chiltern Main Line than the Watford DCs are a part of the WCML. At least the Watford DCs end up next to the WCML rather than several miles away.

Transferring Aylesbury to the Met would allow Marylebone's very limited capacity to focus on the Chiltern Main Line, providing more capacity for that route.
The Metropolitan line is apparently very popular with people able to chose between it and chiltern, the NR option gets beaten handily by the Met at all shared stops except Amersham, where it manages a near draw.
Even the stations beyond Amersham add up to about half of Amersham's combined passenger figures!

Transferring to the Met is almost certain to be a lot cheaper in capital terms, ~45 track kilometres of four rail electrification (50 ish for Aylesbury Vale Parkway) or ~110/115 track kilometres of 25kV installation, measuring from the CML divergence.
The 25kV installation isn't going to get you much change out of £500m based on recent MML costings.

You'd have to buy a lot of marginally cheaper stock to make good that difference. S-Stock is hardly a small fleet, and a significant fraction of all UK rail vehicles are built for four rail operation (4179 vehicles, about a fifth of all UK passenger rail vehicles).


And yet ONR has not issued a presumption against it, as it has done for Network rail third rail installations.
London Underground working practices are considered to be effective at mitigating the risk from such installations.

Running the Met to Aylesbury could work but I don’t see what we are saving considering that it’s just going to be 2 tph from Baker Street to Aylesbury. It’s going to be the same service.

 

[mr_jrt]

And yet ONR has not issued a presumption against it, as it has done for Network rail third rail installations.
London Underground working practices are considered to be effective at mitigating the risk from such installations.

The majority of the underground is securely located in tunnels, which minimises the risks. The outer reaches of the Met through rural Buckinghamshire is somewhat different to the majority. It would be a hard sell to demand they have to replace all their rolling stock and re-electrify.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The majority of the underground is securely located in tunnels, which minimises the risks.

It's actually in fact not. Most of the Underground is not underground.

 

[mr_jrt]

It's actually in fact not. Most of the Underground is not underground.

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.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I think the Metropolitan Railway (or London Transport) did have plans to electrify the line to Aylesbury in the 1930s but WW2 put a stop to that.

Prior to 1960, the Met ran services through to Aylesbury. They were hauled by the Sarah Siddons class of electric locos as far as Rickmansworth where a British Railways steam engine was substituted. Did British Railways run stopping trains from Marylebone to Aylesbury? Beyond Aylesbury it was a main line to Rugby, Nottingham and Sheffield with some trains from Marylebone routed via Amersham. Post electrification the Amersham to Aylesbury service became British Rail's responsibility, some of which ran through to Marylebone.

What's the latest story on Old Oak Common? Running services there from Wycombe etc. might prove as popular as Marylebone give the connections available to Elizabeth line services to elsewhere in London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's the latest story on Old Oak Common? Running services there from Wycombe etc. might prove as popular as Marylebone give the connections available to Elizabeth line services to elsewhere in London.

Old Oak is an interesting option for Chiltern. I'd prefer Marylebone as I prefer onward travel by bicycle when using Chiltern (plus MYB is just *civilised*), and OOC is a bit far out for that, but Marylebone is very poorly connected for those wanting to go onwards by Tube, so I can see a case for serving both, though it isn't applicable to the Aylesbury branch as that goes in a different way.

I don't think you'd want to run all of it into OOC, but 2tph of Wycombe stoppers (say) might not be a bad plan.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

o I can see a case for serving both, though it isn't applicable to the Aylesbury branch as that goes in a different way.

I don't think you'd want to run all of it into OOC, but 2tph of Wycombe stoppers (say) might not be a bad plan.

What it should do is free up some capacity at Marylebone, thereby enabling Aylesbury line trains to be accommodated without having to consider switching them to Baker Street.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What it should do is free up some capacity at Marylebone, thereby enabling Aylesbury line trains to be accommodated without having to consider switching them to Baker Street.

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.

 

[RailWonderer]

What nobody has mentioned yet is that even if TfL were mad enough to want the liability of having to serve the middle of Buckinghamshire (in a time they are cash strapped) they would have to order a load more S stock. Already the Northern line is suffering stock shortages just for a small extension to Battersea, the Met would need to order more stock, even for a 20-30 min frequency. Then would Alstom even build more like for like S stock? And since you're ordering new, why not go for a different variation of S stock with an all-mainline style seating? Why not just order 4th rail 345s instead? Why not change branding to TfL rail?

 

[cle]

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.

These paths would be useful, especially out of an electrified Marylebone. The wired parts could have a metro, proper service. And presumably huge housing developments along the less NIMBY spots could be better supported. And more Oxford service in general, I think 4tph is good (2 fast and 2 semi)

In that instance, the Amersham 2/3 car dmus become a horrible waste of paths.

What nobody has mentioned yet is that even if TfL were mad enough to want the liability of having to serve the middle of Buckinghamshire (in a time they are cash strapped) they would have to order a load more S stock. Already the Northern line is suffering stock shortages just for a small extension to Battersea, the Met would need to order more stock, even for a 20-30 min frequency. Then would Alstom even build more like for like S stock? And since you're ordering new, why not go for a different variation of S stock with an all-mainline style seating? Why not just order 4th rail 345s instead? Why not change branding to TfL rail?

I think this stock issue could be balanced by terminating all at Baker St, vs city trains. And in that way, maybe the stock can be refitted more latitudinally, or with a toilet - even a trolley as it’s all walk-through

 

[172007]

The headache for all this electrification and BEMU units is simply battery technology improvements.

Toyota seem to think we're about 3 to 4 years from Solid State batteries in cars offering 700 - 800 miles range and faster charging from the current generation of batteries.

Future trains need to be fully flexible with the ability to upgrade batteries and associated electronics and software. Improvement on range will significantly change where OHLE needs to be positioned to charge it.

 

[Trainbike46]

The headache for all this electrification and BEMU units is simply battery technology improvements.

Toyota seem to think we're about 3 to 4 years from Solid State batteries in cars offering 700 - 800 miles range and faster charging from the current generation of batteries.

And they've been saying that for about 10 years - I'll believe it when I see it

Future trains need to be fully flexible with the ability to upgrade batteries and associated electronics and software. Improvement on range will significantly change where OHLE needs to be positioned to charge it.

Making units upgradeable is sensible - but I would caution against delay tactics that some people, and for clarity I'm not including you in that group, deploy "In 3-4 years, we'll have way better technology x, so we should wait for that (instead of doing full or partial electrification now)"

 

[HSTEd]

What nobody has mentioned yet is that even if TfL were mad enough to want the liability of having to serve the middle of Buckinghamshire (in a time they are cash strapped) they would have to order a load more S stock. Already the Northern line is suffering stock shortages just for a small extension to Battersea, the Met would need to order more stock, even for a 20-30 min frequency. Then would Alstom even build more like for like S stock? And since you're ordering new, why not go for a different variation of S stock with an all-mainline style seating? Why not just order 4th rail 345s instead? Why not change branding to TfL rail?

Ultimately the person who pays the piper calls the tune, and TfL does not pay the piper. In the end, Westminster does.

If Westminster wants this, and it would save them a lot of money in comparison to the alternatives, the Mayor would ultimately have to make a deal.
Alstom is still building Movia stock so I can't see any reason they would not pump out additional S-stock sets, and even if they want more than usual it is still going to be far cheaper than any kind of 25kV solution.

A four rail solution is also impractical unless the line transfers to the control of London Underground, at which point I can see no reason not to just keep the Metropolitan line branding.
ONR will not permit a third/fourth rail system operated by Network Rail.

The headache for all this electrification and BEMU units is simply battery technology improvements.

Toyota seem to think we're about 3 to 4 years from Solid State batteries in cars offering 700 - 800 miles range and faster charging from the current generation of batteries.

The magical solid state batteries have been a few years away for the last decade or more!

 

[778]

What it should do is free up some capacity at Marylebone, thereby enabling Aylesbury line trains to be accommodated without having to consider switching them to Baker Street.

If Marylebone had been converted to a coach station in the 80s would the Aylesbury - Amersham services have been taken over by the Metropolitan line?

 

[Trainbike46]

Ultimately the person who pays the piper calls the tune, and TfL does not pay the piper. In the end, Westminster does.

If Westminster wants this, and it would save them a lot of money in comparison to the alternatives, the Mayor would ultimately have to make a deal.
Alstom is still building Movia stock so I can't see any reason they would not pump out additional S-stock sets, and even if they want more than usual it is still going to be far cheaper than any kind of 25kV solution.

A four rail solution is also impractical unless the line transfers to the control of London Underground, at which point I can see no reason not to just keep the Metropolitan line branding.
ONR will not permit a third/fourth rail system operated by Network Rail.

Office of Nuclear Regulation? - Personally I'd hope they focus on the nuclear industry and leave the railways to the ORR

Seriously though, this is a good point - an agreement between TfL and central government that provides money for the line and sets out the conditions TfL needs to meet would resolve the control and finance issues

The magical solid state batteries have been a few years away for the last decade or more!

And note how Toyota, unlike most manufacturers, has no line-up of electric vehicle models - It's almost as if they got stuck in their own delay tactics

 

[MarlowDonkey]

If Marylebone had been converted to a coach station in the 80s would the Aylesbury - Amersham services have been taken over by the Metropolitan line?

I think that was the plan during the period it was under consideration. Wycombe line services were to be diverted to Paddington.

According to wiki

Closure proposals​

After the 1960s, lack of investment led to local services and the station becoming increasingly run down. By the early 1980s, Marylebone was under serious threat of closure. In 1983, British Rail chairman Peter Parker commissioned a report into the possibility of converting Marylebone into a high-speed busway, whereby Marylebone would be converted into a coach station.[40] The tracks between Marylebone, Harrow-on-the-Hill and South Ruislip would have closed, and been converted into a road for the exclusive use of buses and coaches.[41] British Rail services via High Wycombe would have been diverted into Paddington and the Aylesbury services would have been taken over by London Underground on an extended Metropolitan line, and then routed to Baker Street.[42]

British Rail formally announced plans to close Marylebone on 15 March 1984, pending a statutory consultation process and closure notices were posted at the station. The proposals proved controversial and faced strong opposition from local authorities and the public, leading to a legal battle which lasted for two years.[43] Despite the pending closure, passenger numbers only dropped by about 400 per day from 1968 levels.[44] The conversion project proved impractical due to the headroom limitations on the line and the closure was quietly dropped.[40]

 

[HSTEd]

Office of Nuclear Regulation? - Personally I'd hope they focus on the nuclear industry and leave the railways to the ORR

Oops! But yes, the ORR.

 

[cle]

On the OOC note - I don't know if this has evolved but it was stated to be 4tph:
2tph High Wycombe
1tph Oxford
1tph Banbury

as I recall, likely into two bays. No detail on traction, power or intermediate stops, e.g. Greenford. I would say to not have any, as the Central line now has tons of capacity on this stretch. Nowhere is especially important (Northolt is busiest - if Park Royal interchange was ever built, and that business park more successful, perhaps that would be interesting, if a little close to OOC)

A fast journey to/from Denham and onwards would be key to entice people onto Crossrail at OOC. Which may enable growth out of Marylebone - possibly even to Aylesbury... full circle.