Why are Chiltern's London services crap?

[e27002 aurora]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton

Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home". :)
Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.
Guy Gorton

Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.

According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.

IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and station to Snow
Hill.

Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

[e27002 aurora]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton

Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home". :)
Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.
Guy Gorton

Corrected version.

Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.

According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.

IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and stations to Snow
Hill.

Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury, but with some trains turning back at Gerards
Cross and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with
the Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should
be greatly improved.

[Charles Ellson]

Post by e27002 aurora
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton

Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home". :)
Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.
Guy Gorton

Corrected version.
Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.
According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.
IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and stations to Snow
Hill.
Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury, but with some trains turning back at Gerards
Cross and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with
the Piccadilly Line)

Separated by a street and a lot of shops etc. Improvement there would
be limited to making the existence of the adjacent station more well
known and maintaining a clearly signposted route. It is already an OSI
(out of station interchange) on the Oyster system and one of the
shorter of such pairings. The spoiler is the low service frequency on
the NR line which the TfL journey planner can deal with but would need
some further thought for applying it to station information systems if
e.g. at appropriate locations passengers could be advised to "change
at Sudbury stations to arrive earlier at X/ for a shorter route to X".

Post by e27002 aurora
and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should
be greatly improved.

[Guy Gorton]

Post by e27002 aurora
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton

Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home". :)
Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.
Guy Gorton

Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.
According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.
IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and station to Snow
Hill.
Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And what about the existing fast service to Snow Hill, first stop
Banbury? Your idea of all-stations stoppers would make a nonsense of
the 100mph investment.

Guy Gorton

[e27002 aurora]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:48:24 +0100, Guy Gorton

Post by Guy Gorton

Post by e27002 aurora
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton

Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home". :)
Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.
Guy Gorton

Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.
According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.
IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and station to Snow
Hill.
Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And what about the existing fast service to Snow Hill, first stop
Banbury? Your idea of all-stations stoppers would make a nonsense of
the 100mph investment.

Guy,

It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

[e27002 aurora]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9

Post by e27002 aurora
It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!
Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.

Most stations on the GCGW joint route were four platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Sadly, the socialists and their nationalized railway did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.

(1) for some perverse value of good.

[e27002 aurora]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
<***@londonbanter.co.uk> wrote:

Corrected versio.

Post by e27002 aurora
It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!
Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.

(1) for some perverse value of good.

[Basil Jet]

Post by e27002 aurora
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

[e27002 aurora]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

No.

[Guy Gorton]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

No.

And it is cuit-and-cover so very difficult to do anything with.

Guy Gorton

[Recliner]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

You're joking, right? There are no four-track sections between Marylebone
and Banbury, and none outside a station.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Recliner

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

You're joking, right? There are no four-track sections between Marylebone
and Banbury, and none outside a station.

I didn't mean are there four tracks, I meant is it wide enough for four
tracks.

[e27002 aurora]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn

Post by e27002 aurora
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
Corrected versio.

Post by e27002 aurora
It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!
Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.
Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.
(1) for some perverse value of good.

Total Route Modernisation included building wider platforms on the formation, so making re-four tracking much more difficult. It was under the Conservatives btw.
Patrick

British Railways was clearly a socialist creation. Its creation
followed the 1945 post war labour victory.

It is conceivable that the DfT (DoT?) had some input to the Total
Route Modernization. I would need evidence before believing there was
cabinet level input regarding destruction of the platform loops.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by e27002 aurora
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn

Post by e27002 aurora
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
Corrected versio.

Post by e27002 aurora
It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!
Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.
Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.
(1) for some perverse value of good.

Total Route Modernisation included building wider platforms on the formation, so making re-four tracking much more difficult. It was under the Conservatives btw.
Patrick

British Railways was clearly a socialist creation. Its creation
followed the 1945 post war labour victory.

Where do you get this strange idea that the Labour party is socialist?

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:40:41 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn

Post by e27002 aurora
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
Corrected versio.

Post by e27002 aurora
It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!
Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.
Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.
Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.
(1) for some perverse value of good.

Total Route Modernisation included building wider platforms on the formation, so making re-four tracking much more difficult. It was under the Conservatives btw.
Patrick

British Railways was clearly a socialist creation.

It was created by the government but the previous government had
itself threatened the railways with nationalisation when they got
uppity about government control in WW2.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
Its creation
followed the 1945 post war labour victory.

Where do you get this strange idea that the Labour party is socialist?

Er, 1945 not 2016.

[e27002 aurora]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 03:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Chris

Post by e27002 aurora
Guy,
It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

If you had read NR's latest Route Study, you'd notice there is NO mention of a four track railway - even to 2043.
Yes, some services are likely to go to OOC, both from the Mail Line & the heartlands stations, which would free up a platform or two / paths from Northolt top Marylebone. This won't help the Metro stations as there is nowhere to start a metro service from - the Ruislips will still need to handle all the services....
Chiltern have no interest in more Metro services as TfL won't pay for them.

So, I was basing my comments on the news item on pages 20 and 21 of
the July Modern Railways.

You are correct: When one reads the actual study, page 71 reads
"Additional track sections through Beaconsfield, Denham and Princes
Risborough to create four track sections in the
station areas. Reconfiguration of the layout at Princes Risborough
Station to extend Platform 1 and create movements
in both directions for Aylesbury services into and out of Platforms 1
and 2."

Which indicates some restoration of the platform loops removed by the
nationalized railway. An improvement, if a lessor one.

As for metro services these can be raised at franchise renewal time.
Residents should consider contacting their MP(s).

[Guy Gorton]

Post by e27002 aurora
Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And the Oxford Parkway route? Fast, convenient, soon to be extended
to Oxford. Having observed the crowds heading for Bicester Village, I
suggest virtually all the patronage is from central London, not sundry
stations NW of Marylebone. Some of the trains are already non-stop
Marylebone to/from Bicester Village, some with one stop.

Guy Gorton

[e27002 aurora]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:54:39 +0100, Guy Gorton

Post by Guy Gorton

Post by e27002 aurora
Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And the Oxford Parkway route? Fast, convenient, soon to be extended
to Oxford. Having observed the crowds heading for Bicester Village, I
suggest virtually all the patronage is from central London, not sundry
stations NW of Marylebone. Some of the trains are already non-stop
Marylebone to/from Bicester Village, some with one stop.
Guy Gorton

The Oxford trains would use the fast pair to Princes Risborough, thus
accelerating the service.

[e27002 aurora]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 21:08:31 +0100, BevanPrice

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 00:07:44 +0100, Paul Corfield

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:45:17 -0700 (PDT), "Schnuzelbug (Chris

Chiltern's London suburban services are dire awful, infrequent 2
car, diesel trains that are poorly publicised.
The service frequency to places like Wembley Stadium, Northolt
Park and Sudbury Road are diabolical.
The 2025 Marylebone-Aylesbury was a 2 car 165 that left with no
standing room even before it had left Marylebone.
I'd have thought affluent Buckinghamshire with John 'Mr Speaker'
Bercrow as their MP would have lots of influence over a better
rail service.
@chilternrailway Why do you run infrequent 2 carriage trains on
London suburban routes? 2025 Aylesbury no standing room leaving
Mar'bone (1)
@chilternrailway (2) I'd have thought affluent Buckinghamshire
would have a better train service. Most London TOCs are electric
(3)
@chilternrailway (4) and have 4/8/12 car trains at 15min
intervals. You use 2/3 car diesel trains at 30/60min intervals!
Chiltern are crap!
I've had this opinion of Chiltern for some time but never
expressed it.
Sadiq... London Overground...

Why have a go at the operator? They run what the DfT require them
to run. The DfT specifies the minimalist service levels as its
priorities are the longer distance services that pull in the
money. Furthermore the entire scope of Chiltern's long term
franchise has been focused on the medium and longer distance
markets with investment to suit. Criticise and question the DfT -
they set out what is expected.
As an aside don't look too closely at the train service
specifications on West Anglia for the new Anglia franchise. Next
to no improvement at all at any of the London area stations and
it's still not clear what service level with run on the new STAR
service. That's all been set out by the DfT and they've even
removed the peak hour semi fasts that serve Edmonton Green.
Being blunt there are perfectly decent, albeit a bit slow, tube
services to / from Wembley, the Ruislips and Sudburys. There is
unlikely to be much of a business case, using DfT's methodology to
put back infrastructure to allow a marginally more frequent local
service. I suspect that it would be impossible to achieve 4 tph and
certainly nothing like 6 tph for locals.
Anyway the rumoured plan is to ensure some Chiltern services are
able to reach Old Oak Common (post HS2 rebuild / redevelopment) to
give easy access into HS2 / Crossrail / FGW / Overground services.
The frequencies are unlikely to be stellar given the constraints of
the New North Line but Chiltern have been pretty adept at growing
their services from modest beginnings.

Of course, if some Chiltern services are diverted to OOC, that would
leave room for one or two extra local services an hour into
Marylebone.

If capacity was available, might it be better for the "fast" Birmingham
services to revert to their traditional route from Paddington, freeing a
little capacity on the South Ruislip - Marylebone route ?

No as easy as you might think. The tracks would need to cross over the
Elizabeth Line. It would probably require a flyover.

Now if the HS2 tunnel to from OOC to Euston was available, that would
be an elegant solution. :-)