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.

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.

"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".

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:14:26 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

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


Some Chiltern trains could run into Paddington rather than Marylebone.
A half hourly service to Birmingham would only need two platforms.

There would be a powerful case for making Paddington the second London
terminus (after Euston) for 125 mph trains to Birmingham, given
Paddington's Crossrail connections. And of course Crossrail should
free up some terminal platform capacity at Paddington.

This would also have the advantage of giving a very straight alignment
between Old Oak Common and Northolt Junction, saving several minutes
over the slower route between Northolt Junction and Marylebone.

125 mph running should be possible from Old Oak Common to at least
Denham Golf Club without any major changes in alignment.

On Mar 1, 12:14*am, "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".

Broadly speaking yes, the extra tunnels are still there, AFIK,
although IIRC leased to another party. There is some space up by
Rossmore Rd Bridge, there is no, space undeveloped for non-rail use,
by the concourse.

In the context of this thread, does it matter? Marylebone may not be
the best choice of terminal for an improved service to Birmingham.
With the coming of Crossrail there will be spare capacity at
Paddington. Paddington is, and will be, much better served with
onward connections.

Moreover, it would not be especially difficult to link the route to
Euston by way of a new cord in the Old Oak Common area. Euston offers
a more central location, better terminal services, and better onward
connections.

If we view the entire formation through Northolt, including the TfL
Central Line I believe there is space for an outer pair from OOC.
These tracks could carry a High Speed (135 mph) service, first stop
High Wycombe.

A middle pair (tracks 2 & 5) from Marylebone could carry a service
calling at West Ruislip then all stations to Birmingham and Aylesbury.

The innermost pair would take the Central Line, all stations to West
Rusislip Service, possible taking over the Greenford Loop.

Thus a railway backwater becomes an integrated efficient local and
express service.

On Mar 1, 4:57*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:14*am, "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".

Broadly speaking yes, the extra tunnels are still there, AFIK,
although IIRC leased to another party. *There is some space up by
Rossmore Rd Bridge, there is no, space undeveloped for non-rail use,
by the concourse.

In the context of this thread, does it matter? *Marylebone may not be
the best choice of terminal for an improved service to Birmingham.
With the coming of Crossrail there will be spare capacity at
Paddington. *Paddington is, and will be, much better served with
onward connections.

Moreover, it would not be especially difficult to link the route to
Euston by way of a new cord in the Old Oak Common area. *Euston offers
a more central location, better terminal services, and better onward
connections.

If we view the entire formation through Northolt, including the TfL
Central Line I believe there is space for an outer pair from OOC.
These tracks could carry a High Speed (135 mph) service, first stop
High Wycombe.

A middle pair (tracks 2 & 5) from Marylebone could carry a service
calling at West Ruislip then all stations to Birmingham and Aylesbury.

The innermost pair would take the Central Line, all stations to West
Rusislip Service, possible taking over the Greenford Loop.

Thus a railway backwater becomes an integrated efficient local and
express service.

Sounds innovative. Send your comments to . You
might even win a prize!

On Mar 1, 2:28*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:14:26 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
All of which suggests the answer to my question of how much spare capacity
does Marylebone actually have is "not a lot".

Some Chiltern trains could run into Paddington rather than Marylebone.
A half hourly service to Birmingham would only need two platforms.

There would be a powerful case for making Paddington the second London
terminus (after Euston) for 125 mph trains to Birmingham, given
Paddington's Crossrail connections. *And of course Crossrail should
free up some terminal platform capacity at Paddington.

This would also have the advantage of giving a very straight alignment
between Old Oak Common and Northolt Junction, saving several minutes
over the slower route between Northolt Junction and Marylebone. *

125 mph running should be possible from Old Oak Common to at least
Denham Golf Club without any major changes in alignment.

Though I'd say that alignment is likely to be out of play given the
HS2 talk. That's not to say that HS2 is likely to be anything other
than talk for a long time, nor that it would be necessary under the
Tory vision for HS2 to run via Heathrow, but I can't see 'the railway'
simply forgoing the option of using this alignment for HS2 purposes
and letting it be used for other things, given how well it suits the
not-via-Heathrow plan.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:58:58 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:


On Mar 1, 2:28*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:14:26 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
All of which suggests the answer to my question of how much spare capacity
does Marylebone actually have is "not a lot".

Some Chiltern trains could run into Paddington rather than Marylebone.
A half hourly service to Birmingham would only need two platforms.

There would be a powerful case for making Paddington the second London
terminus (after Euston) for 125 mph trains to Birmingham, given
Paddington's Crossrail connections. *And of course Crossrail should
free up some terminal platform capacity at Paddington.

This would also have the advantage of giving a very straight alignment
between Old Oak Common and Northolt Junction, saving several minutes
over the slower route between Northolt Junction and Marylebone. *

125 mph running should be possible from Old Oak Common to at least
Denham Golf Club without any major changes in alignment.

Though I'd say that alignment is likely to be out of play given the
HS2 talk. That's not to say that HS2 is likely to be anything other
than talk for a long time, nor that it would be necessary under the
Tory vision for HS2 to run via Heathrow, but I can't see 'the railway'
simply forgoing the option of using this alignment for HS2 purposes
and letting it be used for other things, given how well it suits the
not-via-Heathrow plan.


There's nothing stopping a spur to a Heathrow Hub being built from the
former GW Birmingham main line.

My suggestion of a 125 mph line to Birmingham via Wycombe, Bicester
North and Banbury could well be the version of HS2 that actually gets
built, rather than just pontificated about. HS200 (km/h) perhaps?

Despite all Lord Adonis' bluster, there is no convincing economic or
social case for a 186 mph route, and there isn't ever likely to be.
However, there is (apparently) a need for additional capacity between
the West Midlands and London within a few short years from now.

My suggested 125 mph HS200 route would provide both that capacity and
a useful reduction in journey time from Chiltern's current best, at a
vastly lower capital cost and with much lower energy requirements than
HS2. And with a Heathrow spur.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. We can but dream. ;-)

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??

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.