On Mar 2, 4:31*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:11*am, amogles wrote: On 1 Mrz., 04:01, E27002 wrote:

Marylebone was designed with, and land purchased for ten platforms.
It was built with tunnels for seven approach tracks and large goods
yards. *Most of the spare land has been sold including the never
utilized platform space.-

but theoretically it could be recovered, even if in the form of an
undercroft under other structures??

There is an engineering solution to most problems. *The question is
one of cost effectiveness. *IMHO this is a non-starter. *However,
interestingly, IIRC, the foundations of Marylebone were constructed in
such a way as to allow construction, in the future, of a tunnel to the
Circle Line.

Umm.. really? Surely there was already a link - at Baker Street!

On 1 Mar, 09:14, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"1501" wrote in message

...
On 1 Mar, 03:01, E27002 wrote:



On Feb 28, 6:39 pm, "Graham Harrison"

wrote:
"Chafford" wrote in message

...

Following last month's announcement on Evergreen 3, Chiltern Chairman
Adrian Shooter is asking Modern Railways readers what Evergreen 4
should provide. Captain Deltic likes the idea of a 4 track 125mph
electrified railway but reckons that this will have to wait for
Evergreen 5 (and a potential franchise extension to 2026, according to
the article!)

Comments to Captain Deltic at:

I know new platforms have been added but how much spare capacity does
Marylebone and the approaches have?

Marylebone was designed with, and land purchased for ten platforms.
It was built with tunnels for seven approach tracks and large goods
yards. Most of the spare land has been sold including the never
utilized platform space.

Although eye-wateringly expensive to do; some of that land could
always be repurchased.

================

All of which suggests the answer to my question of how much spare capacity
does Marylebone actually have is "not a lot".

Why are those additiona platforms needed in the first place when the
solution already exists... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_VIRM

On Mar 2, 12:13*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:31*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Mar 2, 8:11*am, amogles wrote: On 1 Mrz., 04:01, E27002 wrote:

Marylebone was designed with, and land purchased for ten platforms.
It was built with tunnels for seven approach tracks and large goods
yards. *Most of the spare land has been sold including the never
utilized platform space.-

but theoretically it could be recovered, even if in the form of an
undercroft under other structures??

There is an engineering solution to most problems. *The question is
one of cost effectiveness. *IMHO this is a non-starter. *However,
interestingly, IIRC, the foundations of Marylebone were constructed in
such a way as to allow construction, in the future, of a tunnel to the
Circle Line.

Umm.. really?

Yes.

Surely there was already a link - at Baker Street!

Yes.

"Maarten Otto" wrote in message
...
On 1 Mar, 09:14, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"1501" wrote in message

...
On 1 Mar, 03:01, E27002 wrote:



On Feb 28, 6:39 pm, "Graham Harrison"

wrote:
"Chafford" wrote in message

...

Following last month's announcement on Evergreen 3, Chiltern
Chairman
Adrian Shooter is asking Modern Railways readers what Evergreen 4
should provide. Captain Deltic likes the idea of a 4 track 125mph
electrified railway but reckons that this will have to wait for
Evergreen 5 (and a potential franchise extension to 2026, according
to
the article!)

Comments to Captain Deltic at:

I know new platforms have been added but how much spare capacity does
Marylebone and the approaches have?

Marylebone was designed with, and land purchased for ten platforms.
It was built with tunnels for seven approach tracks and large goods
yards. Most of the spare land has been sold including the never
utilized platform space.

Although eye-wateringly expensive to do; some of that land could
always be repurchased.

================

All of which suggests the answer to my question of how much spare
capacity
does Marylebone actually have is "not a lot".

Why are those additiona platforms needed in the first place when the
solution already exists... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_VIRM

Ahhh double deck trains. Would be nice but we have a problem with loading
gauge - to use trains like those would require rebuilding lots of bridges
and tunnels so that the top of the train is far enough from the top of the
tunnel/bridge. Or that's the usual explanation trotted out when the idea
of DD trains appears.

I was also asking about the capacity of the tracks approaching Marylebone.
While DD trains can add capacity without needing to change signaling there
comes a point when (if traffic continues to grow) more trains are required.
How close are the tracks into Marylebone to capacity given existing
signaling etc?

On 2 Mar, 20:57, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Ahhh double deck trains. * Would be nice but we have a problem with loading

I rode on one on Friday, between Long Island City and Jamaica. I'm
not keen on them, slow for passengers to board and alight, you need to
keep going up and down stairs at each vehicle end to walk through the
train, can only have doors at the vehicle ends.

"Graham Harrison" wrote

I was also asking about the capacity of the tracks approaching Marylebone.
While DD trains can add capacity without needing to change signaling there
comes a point when (if traffic continues to grow) more trains are
required. How close are the tracks into Marylebone to capacity given
existing signaling etc?
There are 17 arrivals at Marylebone in the peak hour (0757 - 0857). Six
platforms could handle more than this - Charing Cross has around 28 arrivals
in the peak hour, also in six platforms. While the disused tunnels from
Canfield Place could potentially provide additional capacity I don't think
it would be feasible to provide additional tracks between Neasden South
Junction and Canfield Place, so 20 arrivals is perhaps the maximum
practicable capacity. However, with platform lengthening at stations along
the Chiltern Line (some of which is planned or in hand) most trains could be
lengthened - five of the six platforms can take 8 coach trains, though
alterations would be needed to get the remaining platform beyond 5 coaches.

Peter

"E27002" wrote

The tunnel was never built. I am not arguing that it should have
been. However, provision was made in the foundations of Marylebone
station ans IIRC The Great Central Hotel for it to be built at a later
date. Again, IIRC, it was intended to allow freight trains to access
goods facilities in the City of London.

I don't think Watkin had completely abandoned the idea of through trains
from Manchester to Paris via W******d, the GCR, a spur at Marylebone, the
Inner Circle, the East London Line, the South Eastern Main Line, and the
Channel Tunnel.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...


"Graham Harrison" wrote

I was also asking about the capacity of the tracks approaching
Marylebone. While DD trains can add capacity without needing to change
signaling there comes a point when (if traffic continues to grow) more
trains are required. How close are the tracks into Marylebone to capacity
given existing signaling etc?
There are 17 arrivals at Marylebone in the peak hour (0757 - 0857). Six
platforms could handle more than this - Charing Cross has around 28
arrivals in the peak hour, also in six platforms. While the disused
tunnels from Canfield Place could potentially provide additional capacity
I don't think it would be feasible to provide additional tracks between
Neasden South Junction and Canfield Place, so 20 arrivals is perhaps the
maximum practicable capacity. However, with platform lengthening at
stations along the Chiltern Line (some of which is planned or in hand)
most trains could be lengthened - five of the six platforms can take 8
coach trains, though alterations would be needed to get the remaining
platform beyond 5 coaches.

Peter

So we can grow the number of trains a little and the size of some of the
trains a little. Thank you. To me that suggests we either have to find
somewhere else to expand to; Paddington has been suggested or Evergreen 4
has to be something that is not London centric. I've made a London Centric
suggestion so here's a non London (but still arguably South East) centric
suggestion - focus on the Oxford/Bletchley route.

I don't claim to know enough about Birmingham but how about some
enhancements there?

On Mar 2, 11:12*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"Peter Masson" wrote in message

...







"Graham Harrison" wrote

I was also asking about the capacity of the tracks approaching
Marylebone. While DD trains can add capacity without needing to change
signaling there comes a point when (if traffic continues to grow) more
trains are required. How close are the tracks into Marylebone to capacity
given existing signaling etc?
There are 17 arrivals at Marylebone in the peak hour (0757 - 0857). Six
platforms could handle more than this - Charing Cross has around 28
arrivals in the peak hour, also in six platforms. While the disused
tunnels from Canfield Place could potentially provide additional capacity
I don't think it would be feasible to provide additional tracks between
Neasden South Junction and Canfield Place, so 20 arrivals is perhaps the
maximum practicable capacity. However, with platform lengthening at
stations along the Chiltern Line (some of which is planned or in hand)
most trains could be lengthened - five of the six platforms can take 8
coach trains, though alterations would be needed to get the remaining
platform beyond 5 coaches.

Peter

So we can grow the number of trains a little and the size of some of the
trains a little. * Thank you. * To me that suggests we either have to find
somewhere else to expand to; Paddington has been suggested or Evergreen 4
has to be something that is not London centric. * I've made a London Centric
suggestion so here's a non London (but still arguably South East) centric
suggestion - focus on the Oxford/Bletchley route.

I don't claim to know enough about Birmingham but how about some
enhancements there?

If Evergreen 4/5 is to be a cut price substitute for HS2 (Captain D's
suggestion), then the London Terminus issue will have to be addressed.

On Mar 4, 6:31*pm, darkprince66
wrote:
Centro also wants a 10 minute frequency local service between Solihull
and Stourbridge Junction, doubling the existing 20 minute service.
With the hourly non stop XC train between New Street and Leamington,
and 2ph Chiltern trains to Marylebone, plus pathing for freight and
the odd WSMR train that runs via Solihull, a relatively easy option
would be to restore the 4 track section between Tyseley and Solihull,
or maybe even Dorridge. Not particularly cheap, as extensive
alteration would be needed at Acocks Green and Widney Manor as car
parks cover the formation, a couple of bridges would need to be
restored and Bentley Heath crossing would need to be reworked, but the
formation is otherwise still there, and the platforms are still there
at Olton and Solihull. Of course, it would have made sense for the
Snow Hill Cross City trains to go to Chiltern rather than ending up
with London Midland so that total integration of the services could be
achieved, but sense and railways don't often end up in bed with each
other....

I agree wholeheartedly; I have always felt that the former four-track
segment between Dorridge and Tyseley should have been re-quadrupled a
long time ago. I hope Chiltern chooses to consider this as part of
Evergreen 4.

The only thing I would interject is the requirement that the junction
between the relief lines and the main lines south of Dorridge
incorporate a grade separation of some type, allowing trains from the
down main and up main access to the down relief and up relief (and
vice versa) without obstructing anything. The simplest option would be
a flyover or diveunder for the up relief, bringing it outside of the
up main and providing a high-speed convergence. Such a junction would
provide maximum flexibility, especially since London Midland will be
running the 'local' services and Chiltern/WSMR/Virgin running the
'main' service.