On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:18:28 -0800 (PST), E27002
wrote:





On Mar 4, 3:36 am, Jamie *Thompson wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, Chafford wrote:

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:

How about Aylesbury to Banbury via Buckingham, restoring that
population centre to the rail network? Though I suspect Rugby would be
the better bet.

Aylesbury to Verney Junction would not be an easy re-opening. *The
line was not well built to begin with.

OTOH If you are talking about re-opening Aylesbury to Banbury as part
of a third route to Birmingham, I think that has real merits. *All of
Metroland would be given easy access to England's second city.

If Network Rail added a new curve towards Bletchley, Chlitern's trains
could reach Milton Keynes Central with all of the onward connections
that MKC has to offer.

There already is a curve at Claydon Junction pointing toward
Bletchley; the problem IIRC is the gaps in the track along the route.

Understood, indeed, I have photographed that very curve, along with
Calvert Station, albeit many years back.

The problem with the route by way of Claydon is that it only provides
a very indirect route to Milton Keynes. There is no easy way of
connecting it to Banbury. The route by way of Verney Junction, plus a
new curve, provides through routes to Banbury and Milton Keynes.

Having both gives the residents of Metroland living north of Harrow
great increased travel opportunities. It also gives Chiltern an
alternative route to Birmingham.

On Mar 5, 3:53*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:



On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:18:28 -0800 (PST), E27002
wrote:

On Mar 4, 3:36 am, Jamie *Thompson wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, Chafford wrote:

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:

How about Aylesbury to Banbury via Buckingham, restoring that
population centre to the rail network? Though I suspect Rugby would be
the better bet.

Aylesbury to Verney Junction would not be an easy re-opening. *The
line was not well built to begin with.

OTOH If you are talking about re-opening Aylesbury to Banbury as part
of a third route to Birmingham, I think that has real merits. *All of
Metroland would be given easy access to England's second city.

If Network Rail added a new curve towards Bletchley, Chlitern's trains
could reach Milton Keynes Central with all of the onward connections
that MKC has to offer.

There already is a curve at Claydon Junction pointing toward
Bletchley; the problem IIRC is the gaps in the track along the route.

Understood, indeed, I have photographed that very curve, along with
Calvert Station, albeit many years back.

The problem with the route by way of Claydon is that it only provides
a very indirect route to Milton Keynes. *There is no easy way of
connecting it to Banbury. *The route by way of Verney Junction, plus a
new curve, provides through routes to Banbury and Milton Keynes.

Having both gives the residents of Metroland living north of Harrow
great increased travel opportunities. *It also gives Chiltern an
alternative route to Birmingham.

In all fairness, Vernney Junction was, is, and probably always will be
a field, so building a *new* curve from the Oxford-Bedford line to the
route through Buckingham (running via Calvert) wouldn't exactly be
difficult. The line from Vernney Junction to Quainton road doesn't
appear to have anything but a few scattered dwellings anywhere near it
anyway. On a tangent...I do wonder why the Buckingham Railway Centre
never bothered trying to rebuild the line north so they'd have
somewhere to run their rolling stock. I would've imagined that running
between Buckingham and Quainton road would've been a good line length
to operate, with little operational railway concerns.

On 5 Mar, 20:11, Jamie Thompson wrote:

On a tangent...I do wonder why the Buckingham Railway Centre
never bothered trying to rebuild the line north so they'd have
somewhere to run their rolling stock. I would've imagined that running
between Buckingham and Quainton road would've been a good line length
to operate, with little operational railway concerns.

They struggle to operate the length they presently have. Worse than
Didcot!

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:11:04 -0800 (PST), Jamie Thompson
wrote:

On Mar 5, 3:53*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:



On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:18:28 -0800 (PST), E27002
wrote:

On Mar 4, 3:36 am, Jamie *Thompson wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, Chafford wrote:

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:

How about Aylesbury to Banbury via Buckingham, restoring that
population centre to the rail network? Though I suspect Rugby would be
the better bet.

Aylesbury to Verney Junction would not be an easy re-opening. *The
line was not well built to begin with.

OTOH If you are talking about re-opening Aylesbury to Banbury as part
of a third route to Birmingham, I think that has real merits. *All of
Metroland would be given easy access to England's second city.

If Network Rail added a new curve towards Bletchley, Chlitern's trains
could reach Milton Keynes Central with all of the onward connections
that MKC has to offer.

There already is a curve at Claydon Junction pointing toward
Bletchley; the problem IIRC is the gaps in the track along the route.

Understood, indeed, I have photographed that very curve, along with
Calvert Station, albeit many years back.

The problem with the route by way of Claydon is that it only provides
a very indirect route to Milton Keynes. *There is no easy way of
connecting it to Banbury. *The route by way of Verney Junction, plus a
new curve, provides through routes to Banbury and Milton Keynes.

Having both gives the residents of Metroland living north of Harrow
great increased travel opportunities. *It also gives Chiltern an
alternative route to Birmingham.

In all fairness, Vernney Junction was, is, and probably always will be
a field, so building a *new* curve from the Oxford-Bedford line to the
route through Buckingham (running via Calvert) wouldn't exactly be
difficult. The line from Vernney Junction to Quainton road doesn't
appear to have anything but a few scattered dwellings anywhere near it
anyway. On a tangent...I do wonder why the Buckingham Railway Centre
never bothered trying to rebuild the line north so they'd have
somewhere to run their rolling stock.

Leaving aside the money, it would be necessary to reconstruct a
platform on the west side of the road bridge, there being no room for
new one on the east side or unless the NR track changes sides to the
Down platform to allow use of the present Up platform. That still
leaves the problem that NR own the land between the location of the
19th century Up platform (when the road bridge replaced a level
crossing the station buildings were relocated on the London side of
the road crossing) and the site of the junction leading to Verney
Junction where they would no doubt come up with umpteen requirements
due to the proximity to their own running line whether they sold,
leased or rented the land.

I would've imagined that running
between Buckingham and Quainton road would've been a good line length
to operate, with little operational railway concerns.

There would be several level crossings. :-(

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:10:27 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:11:04 -0800 (PST), Jamie Thompson
wrote:

In all fairness, Vernney Junction was, is, and probably always will be
a field, so building a *new* curve from the Oxford-Bedford line to the
route through Buckingham (running via Calvert) wouldn't exactly be
difficult. The line from Vernney Junction to Quainton road doesn't
appear to have anything but a few scattered dwellings anywhere near it
anyway. On a tangent...I do wonder why the Buckingham Railway Centre
never bothered trying to rebuild the line north so they'd have
somewhere to run their rolling stock.

Leaving aside the money


Why leave it aside? It is the over-riding issue.

From its earliest days, the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre has had the
greatest difficulty raising funds to keep its operation going, let
alone to expand.

The Centre flatters to deceive. The rebuilding of the Rewley Road
station building, courtesy of a Lottery grant, gave Quainton Road an
outstanding asset. However, that asset is slightly out of place in a
ramshackle operation that has always been run on a shoestring.

Its location is at the root of the problem. The area is thinly
populated meaning that people have to travel from further away.
The transport links that most people actually want to use to access
railway preservation centres (called *roads*) are poor.

The centre doesn't have a reputation for anything in particular and is
home to several disparate groups of enthusiasts rather than having one
coherent strategy. One could point to an overall lack of direction
but in truth there are many different directions, some of which can
conflict with others.

Buckinghamshire Railway Centre has weathered several financial crises
over the years. The current poor state of the economy means that
survival must be their primary objective - or their sole objective.

There isn't any money available for grandiose schemes. There never
has been, except of course the Lottery grant for the station building
which, as I said, gives a false impression of the Centre.

Dreaming about re-opening to Buckingham would have been a distraction
from the business of survival. It was never going to happen.

"E27002" wrote in message
...

The problem with the route by way of Claydon is that it only provides
a very indirect route to Milton Keynes. There is no easy way of
connecting it to Banbury. The route by way of Verney Junction, plus a
new curve, provides through routes to Banbury and Milton Keynes.

Having both gives the residents of Metroland living north of Harrow
great increased travel opportunities.

But if that were the main objective - and I'm not suggesting it isn't a good
idea - it could be achieved much more easily with the Croxley Link. Then you
could run the following services:

Baker Street to Watford Junction via Moor Park (Met)
Baker Street to Chesham (Met)
Cut out all Met Amersham services - basically diverting these to Watford
Junction
Marylebone to Aylesbury Vale Parkway via the Met line (Chiltern), serving
Amersham
Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Watford Junction (Chiltern).

Regards

Jonathan

On Mar 6, 1:10*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:11:04 -0800 (PST), Jamie *Thompson



wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:53*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:18:28 -0800 (PST), E27002
wrote:

On Mar 4, 3:36 am, Jamie *Thompson wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, Chafford wrote:

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:

How about Aylesbury to Banbury via Buckingham, restoring that
population centre to the rail network? Though I suspect Rugby would be
the better bet.

Aylesbury to Verney Junction would not be an easy re-opening. *The
line was not well built to begin with.

OTOH If you are talking about re-opening Aylesbury to Banbury as part
of a third route to Birmingham, I think that has real merits. *All of
Metroland would be given easy access to England's second city.

If Network Rail added a new curve towards Bletchley, Chlitern's trains
could reach Milton Keynes Central with all of the onward connections
that MKC has to offer.

There already is a curve at Claydon Junction pointing toward
Bletchley; the problem IIRC is the gaps in the track along the route..

Understood, indeed, I have photographed that very curve, along with
Calvert Station, albeit many years back.

The problem with the route by way of Claydon is that it only provides
a very indirect route to Milton Keynes. *There is no easy way of
connecting it to Banbury. *The route by way of Verney Junction, plus a
new curve, provides through routes to Banbury and Milton Keynes.

Having both gives the residents of Metroland living north of Harrow
great increased travel opportunities. *It also gives Chiltern an
alternative route to Birmingham.

In all fairness, Vernney Junction was, is, and probably always will be
a field, so building a *new* curve from the Oxford-Bedford line to the
route through Buckingham (running via Calvert) wouldn't exactly be
difficult. The line from Vernney Junction to Quainton road doesn't
appear to have anything but a few scattered dwellings anywhere near it
anyway. On a tangent...I do wonder why the Buckingham Railway Centre
never bothered trying to rebuild the line north so they'd have
somewhere to run their rolling stock.

Leaving aside the money, it would be necessary to reconstruct a
platform on the west side of the road bridge, there being no room for
new one on the east side or unless the NR track changes sides to the
Down platform to allow use of the present Up platform. That still
leaves the problem that NR own the land between the location of the
19th century Up platform (when the road bridge replaced a level
crossing the station buildings were relocated on the London side of
the road crossing) and the site of the junction leading to Verney
Junction where they would no doubt come up with umpteen requirements
due to the proximity to their own running line whether they sold,
leased or rented the land.

I would've imagined that running
between Buckingham and Quainton road would've been a good line length
to operate, with little operational railway concerns.

There would be several level crossings. :-(

Whilst I'm well aware that 80-odd years have passed since it was
closed, I was of the impression that one of the first thing to Met did
when they bought the line was to replace the level crossings with
bridges - something NR can't even manage on it's mainlines to this
day? Say what you want about the old Met Railway...but they knew how
to invest through engineering

On Mar 6, 9:29*am, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 01:10:27 +0000, Charles Ellson

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:11:04 -0800 (PST), Jamie *Thompson
wrote:

In all fairness, Vernney Junction was, is, and probably always will be
a field, so building a *new* curve from the Oxford-Bedford line to the
route through Buckingham (running via Calvert) wouldn't exactly be
difficult. The line from Vernney Junction to Quainton road doesn't
appear to have anything but a few scattered dwellings anywhere near it
anyway. On a tangent...I do wonder why the Buckingham Railway Centre
never bothered trying to rebuild the line north so they'd have
somewhere to run their rolling stock.

Leaving aside the money

Why leave it aside? *It is the over-riding issue.

From its earliest days, the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre has had the
greatest difficulty raising funds to keep its operation going, let
alone to expand. *

The Centre flatters to deceive. *The rebuilding of the Rewley Road
station building, courtesy of a Lottery grant, gave Quainton Road an
outstanding asset. *However, that asset is slightly out of place in a
ramshackle operation that has always been run on a shoestring.

Its location is at the root of the problem. *The area is thinly
populated meaning that people have to travel from further away. *
The transport links that most people actually want to use to access
railway preservation centres (called *roads*) are poor. *

The centre doesn't have a reputation for anything in particular and is
home to several disparate groups of enthusiasts rather than having one
coherent strategy. *One could point to an overall lack of direction
but in truth there are many different directions, some of which can
conflict with others.

Buckinghamshire Railway Centre has weathered several financial crises
over the years. *The current poor state of the economy means that
survival must be their primary objective - or their sole objective. *

There isn't any money available for grandiose schemes. *There never
has been, except of course the Lottery grant for the station building
which, as I said, gives a false impression of the Centre. *

Dreaming about re-opening to Buckingham would have been a distraction
from the business of survival. *It was never going to happen.

Fair enough. Transport links to the centre will probably improve if
the Chiltern service to MK comes about though, and they'll have to see
how things go. That said, the A41's a pretty good road that runs
nearby (aside from going through central Aylesbury), so transport
links aren't that bad. I base my comments on having a running line
being useful on the *relative* success of the Bluebell and Great
Central organisations, that's all.

|"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message
...
|On Mar 6, 1:10 am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:11:04 -0800 (PST), Jamie Thompson


I would've imagined that running
between Buckingham and Quainton road would've been a good line length
to operate, with little operational railway concerns.

There would be several level crossings. :-(
|
|Whilst I'm well aware that 80-odd years have passed since it was
|closed, I was of the impression that one of the first thing to Met did
|when they bought the line was to replace the level crossings with
|bridges - something NR can't even manage on it's mainlines to this
|day? Say what you want about the old Met Railway...but they knew how
|to invest through engineering
|

*All* the level crossings?

Every last one?

Even the footpath and accommodation (provided for access to property cut off
by the railway construction) crossings?

There are an incredible number of these - I live a few hundred yards the
"London" side of Ashurst New Forest station and there are at least three
footpath crossings within a mile of my house. Most people travelling
through here by train don't even know they are there unless they notice the
train horn as they approach them. There is also one old road level crossing
which has been replaced by two bridges (the "new" [c1985] A326 to the west
and a footbridge in the "new" estates to the east) - two road crossings if
you include the one in Ashurst itself which was replaced in the 1930s by the
current A35 bridge. I believe there was also a footpath crossing within 100
yards of my house which was closed about 40 years ago when the "new" part of
Peterscroft Avenue was built.

To replace all the level crossings is a nice idea but would be ruinously
expensive unless we were to accept that a number of little used public
rights of way would have to be cut. In some cases there are considerations
which make it practically impossible. There is a level crossing in the
centre of Totton which would have been replaced many years ago, but the
necessary approach embankments for a bridge would require the demolition of
nearly every property in Junction Road. No realistic alternative alignment
exists nearby so this level crossing, which is extremely inconvenient for
local traffic as well as providing an element of risk to the railway,
remains.

If I can produce all this lot for just 4 route miles of the Bournemouth main
line, imagine how many there must be over Network Rail.
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:18:46 -0000, "Yokel"
wrote:

|"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message
...
|On Mar 6, 1:10 am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:11:04 -0800 (PST), Jamie Thompson


I would've imagined that running
between Buckingham and Quainton road would've been a good line length
to operate, with little operational railway concerns.

There would be several level crossings. :-(
|
|Whilst I'm well aware that 80-odd years have passed since it was
|closed, I was of the impression that one of the first thing to Met did
|when they bought the line was to replace the level crossings with
|bridges - something NR can't even manage on it's mainlines to this
|day?
*All* the level crossings?

Every last one?

Even the footpath and accommodation (provided for access to property cut off
by the railway construction) crossings?

There are an incredible number of these - I live a few hundred yards the
"London" side of Ashurst New Forest station
which has been replaced by two bridges (the "new" [c1985] A326 to the west
and a footbridge in the "new" estates to the east - two road crossings if
you include the one in Ashurst itself which was replaced in the 1930s by the
current A35 bridge. I believe there was also a footpath crossing within 100
yards of my house which was closed about 40 years ago when the "new" part of
Peterscroft Avenue was built.

Would that have extended from the short road between what was the BP
garage and the big house opposite which I think is now a Childrens
home? It used to be just a private boarding house and I stayed there
for a year or two in the early 70's It looked as if there had been a
recently closed path down the end but I was never sure. The Landlady
had been there a while and could remember when the A35 crossed on the
Level and the Angry cheese was still functioning.

G.Harman