Why do Sudbury & Harrow Road and Sudbury Hill Harrow have such an appalling service?

[Clip]

Another easier option could be to reinstate a four track section from just South of South Ruislip to just North of West Ruislip to improve capacity.

You're going to have to explain how you would 4 track just south of south Ruislip as to do so would shut down the whole network including the recycling centre and how you are going to pay for it.

Belive me the sudburys are the problem.not a solution

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Of course in general 1tph can't really compete with the Tube. Miss the train by two minutes? Just walk to the nearest Tube and be on your way to central London within five minutes. To have any real chance of competing with or complementing the Tube the service level would have to be really ramped up, otherwise the above will just happen ad infinitum.

 

[mr_jrt]

Why?

Extending an extra tube line into an area already served by the Piccadilly, Bakerloo (plus Overground) and (on the periphery) the Metropolitan line makes no sense whatsover.

The point is that the stations are near to useless for access to London for the reasons you state - so their only use is for local journeys, which means you need to serve Neasden with a frequent service, which you can't do with a NR service as there a) isn't the line capacity and b) there isn't the capacity at Marylebone due to the lack of platforms.

For the most part, the Bakerloo duplicates the Central London connectivity that a Jubilee extension would provide anyway. And you-ve just stuffed the capability of the Jubillee Line to clear passengers from events at Wembley too, by halving the service between Wembleys Park and Stadium.

The line wouldn't reduce capacity to Wembley at all - it would be serving Wembley Stadium station, effectively splitting the crowds between two stations, so would dilute the crowds far more effectively than is the case at present. The point you seem to have missed is that the branch would primarily be served by trains that currently turn back at West Hampstead and Willesden Green. Ideally, those turning back at Wembley Park would also be able to potentially serve it, giving a general 50/50 split between the Stanmore (Wembley Park) and Sudbury (Wembley Stadium) service.

As I stated originally, the problem TfL have is that Jubilee Line's full capacity is now needed as far as Wembley (making the turnbacks at West Hampstead and Willesden green effectively useless), but this capacity is not needed in the slightest on the Stanmore branch, and the Wembley Park turnback can't handle turning back the entire Jubilee service on its own (which is why Stanmore got its 3rd platform). Hence their proposal to take over the Uxbridge branch to try and use this capacity more usefully.

In any case, the wide Chiltern Route formation at this point would be exceedingly useful for masts should the line ever be electrified.

Possibly, but given the footprint required for a mast, I'd wager that any space that could be used for a track is more useful with one of those on it rather than a mast which could simply be placed further back from the lines.

 

[LAX54]

But as mentioned in the original post Sudbury is served by the LU - it has three stations on the Piccadilly line so that probably caters for the demand between Sudbury and London. So why make a fuss about only having an hourly national rail service to London? With Sudbury Hill Harrow only getting 70,000 National Rail journeys per annum from an hourly service I imagine the benefit:cost ratio for an improved service is very poor - up here stations needed annual usage of 200,000 or more to be considered to get an enhancement from 1tph in each direction to 2tph under the new Northern franchise.

If the argument is supposed to be passengers on trains from Birmingham and Oxford could change to the LU at Sudbury if more services stopped there is there any evidence for that? WCML passengers seem to prefer to travel to Euston over changing to underground services at Watford Junction (with Watford Junction calls being cut back with very few objections.)

Of course the up side of using this route is it is just 15 mins running time to Marylebone (20 from South Ruislip)

 

[LAX54]

I'll assume 'proper frequent' to mean 3tph as a minimum. Doing that would presumably annihilate the pathing of any non-stop services into or out of Marylebone, especially if you wished to repeat it for all stations to West Ruislip. There just isn't the capacity for the Oxford / Birmingham fasts, regional stuff out to High Wycombe and an all shacks metro service.

Thats the folly of doing away with all the fast lines and loops !

 

[Busaholic]

They are stations surrounded by other routes to London with better services (that go to more useful places than Marylebone), and they have the double whammy of being on two-track sections of Chiltern's line to Birmingham, (where longer journeys are far more profitable). It's not surprising, really.

My personal solution to this would be to create a new branch of the Jubilee Line from Neasden, and rebuild the partial four track formation that was put in place when the line was built. Chiltern can then wash their hands of the stations (running through non-stop), the Jubilee gets somewhere useful to send their excess capacity so they can increase the service in their core without overloading the turnback sidings at West Hampstead and Willesden Green (I seem to recall hearing the capacity is needed out to Wembley/Neasden anyway, but not on the Stanmore branch - hence the proposals to take over the Uxbridge branch - this would remove the need to do that), and by serving Wembley Stadium stadium station, the loss of capacity to Wembley Park station is minimised.

And, while you're at it, reinstate Green Park to Charing Cross, which should never have been removed. Then Charing Cross could be served by one branch or the other, with extra trains Waterloo to Stratford. Crossrail will probably reduce passenger numbers from Canary Wharf going to Bond Street/ Baker Street (changing for Paddington) on the Jubilee.

I now await the demolition squad with bated breath.

 

[Ianno87]

And, while you're at it, reinstate Green Park to Charing Cross, which should never have been removed. Then Charing Cross could be served by one branch or the other, with extra trains Waterloo to Stratford. Crossrail will probably reduce passenger numbers from Canary Wharf going to Bond Street/ Baker Street (changing for Paddington) on the Jubilee.

I now await the demolition squad with bated breath.

Again, why? Your point about Crossrail relieving the Jubilee is a valid one, but how is reopening to Charing Cross providing any real useful new connectivity, given that it is accessible from northern Jubilee stations via a cross-platform interchange at Baker Street? All you're doing is halving the 'through' Jubilee line service and creating a dwell time/operational headache by alternating busy through trains with emptyish Charing X ones. And (say) Paddington to Waterloo/London Bridge frequency (changing at Baker Street) gets effectively halved (that'll be popular....)

And how would you turn back trains at Waterloo reliably without decimating the overall service frequency? Please don't say "build a turnback siding" without considering its constructability at Waterloo (i.e. lowsy, waterlogged ground conditions, and land take necessary on the service, and how you'd shift the masses of London Bridge <> Canary Wharf passengers during the closures necessary to build this).

And you've also increased the number of trains you need to run basically the same level of service (by introducing turnback time at both Charing Cross and Waterloo), and you'll need to identify land for siding/depot space within London for these extra trains too (plus those necessary for any Northern Branch too, if the current "Stanmore" fleet isn't sufficient)

 

[glbotu]

But a huge part of the problem is that the "main" line has changed over the years and only in modern (ish) times has the main been through the GW/GC joint line (the bit between Ruislip and Wembley).

The GCML ran up through Harrow-On-The-Hill on its (and the Met's) 6 track alignment, whereas the GW ran via the New North Main Line which had a 4-tracked alignment. This was always a connector between the two.

 

[MichaelAMW]

The devil is always in the details, unfortunately I can confirm you are correct - the stations on this section were built with side platforms and through roads unlike most of the GCR's mainline stations which had a central island platform and outer through loops (which would have made things much easier!). The options therefore would be to replace the former central roads with an island platform (as was done at Wembley Stadium) and then widen the formation to add the new outer through roads - expensive, and potentially a deal breaker if line speeds were too greatly impacted that you had to buy up a lot of new land to keep them straightish. The other option is to stick with side platforms (i.e. leave the faster central through roads) and add some grade separation at the end of the line, a-la Welwyn station on the ECML. This shouldn't be too expensive if it's only needed for tube stock.

The GC/GW joint line had outer platform loops throughout and given there are a lot of these stations I wouldn't even say that they are the exception rather than the rule, as I think you're implying, for the GC London route. Wembley lost its four tracks some while back - it used to be four tracks Neasden to Blind Lane, about where the line goes over the WCML - but the platforms have remained on the outside.

 

[MichaelAMW]

As originally constructed both stations were on a nice four-track alignment, with the platforms on loops. Great foresight by the Great Central.

Tragically when Network SouthEast's euphemistically described "total route modernisation" of the Chiltern lines was undertaken a 'scorched earth' approach was taken and platforms relocated so as to prevent any reinstatement of quadruple track at sensible cost, thus ensuring that for evermore the two places could only receive a token service.

I find it a bit absurd that simplifications made at a time when the railway was in decline are assumed to be some kind of cynical policy to prevent improvements later on. Sudbury Hill for several years had very slow deviations through the alignment of the old platform loops after signalling at the previously four-track station was reduced to a single two-aspect colour light each way; the track was straightened and the platforms built out to improve the line speed. Sudbury & Harrow Road had a new platform built in the middle because the old wooden platforms that had served the loops were sliding down the embankment (same problem on the down side at Denham). When the loops there were removed, which was 1970ish, the tracks were slewed properly to pass the loop platform faces at line speed so that alignment is suitable even now.

 

[pemma]

Chiltern Railways takes about 10 to 12 minutes to get to Central London. Where as the Piccadilly Line takes about 44 to 52 minutes to get to Central London.

Sudbury Town to Hyde Park Corner via the Piccadilly line is 31 minutes according to TfL. I'd say Hyde Park Corner is more central than Paddington or Euston, which are classed as central London termini. Yes a lot of people will probably continue beyond Hyde Park Corner but I imagine the same is true of Marylebone so the journey times are comparable.

Chiltern takes up to 17 minutes between Sudbury and Marylebone according to RTT, so you've over exaggerated the difference between LU and Chiltern quite a bit!

 

[MichaelAMW]

You're going to have to explain how you would 4 track just south of south Ruislip as to do so would shut down the whole network including the recycling centre and how you are going to pay for it.

Belive me the sudburys are the problem.not a solution

You would extend the down loop at Northolt Junction, the line that passes under the Paddington line, to West Ruislip, as it used to be. You would extend the up loop at West Ruislip to South Ruislip, as it used to be. The main work, apart from the track and signalling, would be narrowing the platforms back to their original widths. That said, I agree that even if this were seen as desirable then it would upset the smooth running of things for quite some time...

 

[tsangpogorge]

The National Rail stations at Sudbury & Harrow Road and Sudbury Hill Harrow are far more convinient that the Piccadilly Line though. Chiltern Railways takes about 10 to 12 minutes to get to Central London. Where as the Piccadilly Line takes about 44 to 52 minutes to get to Central London. I think if Chiltern Railways ran a proper frequent service than both of these stations would both see a huge increase in passenger numbers.

A much more cost effective solution for improving journey times would be a new Piccadilly/Central line interchange at Park Royal, after Crossrail opens this should become feasible.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A much more cost effective solution for improving journey times would be a new Piccadilly/Central line interchange at Park Royal, after Crossrail opens this should become feasible.

Out of interest, why would Crossrail make an interchange there feasible? Crossrail doesn't to my knowledge go anywhere near where the Central and Piccadilly lines cross, does it?

 

[tsangpogorge]

Out of interest, why would Crossrail make an interchange there feasible? Crossrail doesn't to my knowledge go anywhere near where the Central and Piccadilly lines cross, does it?

Was a blunder on my part, thought a future Park Royal station on the Central Line would be on the Ealing Broadway branch which essentially will become duplicated by Crossrail.

 

[Ianno87]

A much more cost effective solution for improving journey times would be a new Piccadilly/Central line interchange at Park Royal, after Crossrail opens this should become feasible.

Remember whenever the Piccadilly line upgrade happens, the new rolling stock and signalling (south/east of Rayners Lane) should help lump a good few minutes off the journey time from Sudbury et al.

In addition, once Crossrail is up and running to Heathrow, there could even be appetite for re-balancing services on the western Picc branches away from Heathrow and towards Uxbridge, upping the frequency via Rayners Lane* as well as reducing the journey time from the new stock and signalling.

*Capacity around Met trains permitting of course.

 

[swt class 450]

I think ideally the best option would be to reinstate a four track railway on the entire length between London Marylebone and High Wycombe stations. It would allow many more trains to call at all of the smaller intermediate stations. I know it would probably be very expensive and cause quite a bit of disruption while the work takes place but i think it would be worth it. The Chiltern Railways lines seem to keep getting busier so reinstating a four track layout would be very useful.

 

[HSTEd]

Remember that the fast Birminghams are very unlikely to survive the opening of HS2 Phase 1 - if any 'low speed, low cost' services do take shape, although I personally doubt it, they are far more likely to use the superior Euston route.

 

[mr_jrt]

I think ideally the best option would be to reinstate a four track railway on the entire length between London Marylebone and High Wycombe stations. It would allow many more trains to call at all of the smaller intermediate stations. I know it would probably be very expensive and cause quite a bit of disruption while the work takes place but i think it would be worth it. The Chiltern Railways lines seem to keep getting busier so reinstating a four track layout would be very useful.

I agree it would be useful, but it was never a four-track railway. At its zenith it had long platform loops at all stations, but linking 4-track sections only at Ruislip and Wembley.

Personally, I want to see Crossrail extended to High Wycombe from OOC, which would probably require 4-tracking the line between Northolt Junction and High Wycombe to keep the services separate from Chiltern's "mainline" services. I think this would be nicely complemented by the Jubilee branch we've been discussing to maintain service and links between Ruislip and Wembley/Neasden and would enable:
a) Far greater frequencies on the metro stations between West Ruilsip and Wembley Stadium far beyond what Marylebone could handle
b) Far greater frequencies on the suburban stations between High Wycombe and South Ruislip far beyond what Marylebone could handle
c) Open up a useful amount of platform capacity at Marylebone by removing the West Ruislip and High Wycombe services, potentially for more services via HotH, or indeed more mainline services.

 

[t_star2001uk]

I think ideally the best option would be to reinstate a four track railway on the entire length between London Marylebone and High Wycombe stations. It would allow many more trains to call at all of the smaller intermediate stations. I know it would probably be very expensive and cause quite a bit of disruption while the work takes place but i think it would be worth it. The Chiltern Railways lines seem to keep getting busier so reinstating a four track layout would be very useful.

The Chiltern route was never a 4 track railway all of the way between Marylebone and High Wycombe, especially in the London area. There was a four track section from Neasden South junction through Wembley Hill (Stadium) station to just before the bridge over St Johns Road (Near the West Coast Mainline Bridge). The next Four track section started just before the bridge over the Harrow Road, running through Sudbury and Harrow Road station and ending just beyond the station. The next four track section started slightly before the Greenford Road overbridge, passing through Sudbury Hill Harrow station and ending next to the Wood End Road overbridge. The next four track section started at South Ruislip and then passing West Ruislip and ending around the Ickenham Road Overbridge. There were then a four tracks at Denham starting by the River Colne overbridge anding just after the station. There were then a set of platform loops at both Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield. At High Wycombe i believe that the passing loops ran from the Gordon Road Underbridge through High Wycombe Station to the Priory road Underbridge. If i have missed anything please let me know...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Remember that the fast Birminghams are very unlikely to survive the opening of HS2 Phase 1 - if any 'low speed, low cost' services do take shape, although I personally doubt it, they are far more likely to use the superior Euston route.

Fast Marylebone-Birmingham services don't exclusively serve the London-Birmingham market; they also carry passengers London-intermediate stations and intermediate stations-Birmingham (and intermediate stations-other intermediate stations). Maybe the services would acquire a couple of extra stops to take account of having fewer end-to-end customers, but I can't see them disappearing with HS2.

 

[The Planner]

Remember that the fast Birminghams are very unlikely to survive the opening of HS2 Phase 1 - if any 'low speed, low cost' services do take shape, although I personally doubt it, they are far more likely to use the superior Euston route.

Don't see why not, unless the new franchise is specifically specified so they can't run them after 2026 then they will carry on, especially if they can get into OOC.

 

[The Planner]

Personally, I want to see Crossrail extended to High Wycombe from OOC, which would probably require 4-tracking the line between Northolt Junction and High Wycombe to keep the services separate from Chiltern's "mainline" services.

Unlikely, Crossrail onto the WCML has not died as yet.

 

[tsangpogorge]

Remember whenever the Piccadilly line upgrade happens, the new rolling stock and signalling (south/east of Rayners Lane) should help lump a good few minutes off the journey time from Sudbury et al.

In addition, once Crossrail is up and running to Heathrow, there could even be appetite for re-balancing services on the western Picc branches away from Heathrow and towards Uxbridge, upping the frequency via Rayners Lane* as well as reducing the journey time from the new stock and signalling.

*Capacity around Met trains permitting of course.

Won't any potential journey time improvements be mitigated by all trains having to stop at Turnham Green in the new time table?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Travelcard attribution - "tiny" , ergo no incentive to run a greater service.

As well as the obvious capacity and operational constraints. Is a £5 worth of business off peak (probably more than the direct costs of stopping a service) - comparable to greater markets down line. ?

 

[Ianno87]

Won't any potential journey time improvements be mitigated by all trains having to stop at Turnham Green in the new time table?

Good point, that will eat up a minute or two.

But, given the distance and number of stops from (say) Hyde Park Corner, improved acceleration/braking at each of these should still give a net overall reduction, I would expect.

 

[mr_jrt]

Unlikely, Crossrail onto the WCML has not died as yet.

I was under the impression that it was all but dead at this point given the costs of the tunnel - HS2 don't look like they want to pay for Crossrail infrastructure, and neither will Crossrail as the primary benefit will be to HS2 during Euston's reconstruction. At this point it looks like a crafty bit of manoeuvring to ensure the grade-separated junction gets built at construction time and the matter is dealt with after the fact by some other project. Given the saturation of the WCML suburban market given it already has a frequent 12-car EMU service and the growth potential on the Chiltern route which currently has an infrequent ~6-8 car DMU service, I'd wager that makes a far better case for growth, and thus repaying the investment. Especially given by the time the WCML tunnel gets built it seems that Euston will already have been rebuilt, negating the primary benefit.

 

[MichaelAMW]

The Chiltern route was never a 4 track railway all of the way between Marylebone and High Wycombe, especially in the London area. There was a four track section from Neasden South junction through Wembley Hill (Stadium) station to just before the bridge over St Johns Road (Near the West Coast Mainline Bridge). The next Four track section started just before the bridge over the Harrow Road, running through Sudbury and Harrow Road station and ending just beyond the station. The next four track section started slightly before the Greenford Road overbridge, passing through Sudbury Hill Harrow station and ending next to the Wood End Road overbridge. The next four track section started at South Ruislip and then passing West Ruislip and ending around the Ickenham Road Overbridge. There were then a four tracks at Denham starting by the River Colne overbridge anding just after the station. There were then a set of platform loops at both Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield. At High Wycombe i believe that the passing loops ran from the Gordon Road Underbridge through High Wycombe Station to the Priory road Underbridge. If i have missed anything please let me know...

Not to disagree, I would say that apart from the Wembley (Neasden North to Blind Lane) and Ruislip (Northolt Junction East to West Ruislip) sections I wouldn't say any of the rest was four tracks as such, just platforms loops with, in some case, extensions of the loops for managing the rather prolific coal trains that headed south from Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. My point being that some overtaking on the move could be done on the two four-track sections but it was really just a case of "sit and wait" at all the others. Much of the route, however, was built with four tracks in mind and you can see that in the width of the track bed and the over bridges, although that extravagance didn't extend to the under bridges.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Not to disagree, I would say that apart from the Wembley (Neasden North to Blind Lane) and Ruislip (Northolt Junction East to West Ruislip) sections I wouldn't say any of the rest was four tracks as such, just platforms loops with, in some case, extensions of the loops for managing the rather prolific coal trains that headed south from Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. My point being that some overtaking on the move could be done on the two four-track sections but it was really just a case of "sit and wait" at all the others. Much of the route, however, was built with four tracks in mind and you can see that in the width of the track bed and the over bridges, although that extravagance didn't extend to the under bridges.

Thanks for the reply. My initial response was to post #47 which the poster talked about reinstating a four track railway on the entire length between Marylebone and High Wycombe...

 

[MichaelAMW]

Thanks for the reply. My initial response was to post #47 which the poster talked about reinstating a four track railway on the entire length between Marylebone and High Wycombe...

Indeed - hence my "Not to disagree"!