On May 21, 7:58*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On May 21, 1:11*pm, Steve Broadbent wrote:





In article ,
*Michael Bell wrote:

Brighton Main Line 2.

I was tickled by an article on this in RAIL No 696 *page 11. I had
heard of re-instating the Oxford Cambridge line, heard of it may be
too often, but I had never heard of BML2!.

And page 68, talk of diverting WCML MK - Watford into Crossrail. Isn't
Crossrail going to be full enough?

And talk of building a wholly new route across "relatively hilly
country" (really steep country and very pretty) from near Luton to
Stevenage as part of an East-West route. If we have the trouble we
have to get a *major* route through the Chilterns, what chances of
getting a minor route through the eastern end of the Chilterns?

What "traction" do these ideas have?

Michael Bell

--

I am very pleased to hear I have tickled you... I have done a lot on
BML2 over the past year or more, and the related Lewes-Uckfield opening,
in RAIL. To put BML2 in context, it is a proposal by an enthusiastic
campaign group keen t see a resolution of the Uckfield and Brighton Main
Line problems, and they can hardly be blamed for trying. The latest
idea, connecting through to Stratford, came, they say, directly as a
result of talking with the rail minister.

Thanks to ardent campaigning BML2 does seem to be gaining real traction,
as you put it, even if it is costly and far off, but is there any other
solution.

I see you also mention the possibility of putting Milton Keynes-Euston
services onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common, again this has ben related
several times in RAIL, although it does not appear to be very active.
Those who support it see it being, inter alia, a relief for Euston when
HS2 starts to be built.

On the other hand, the suggestion of a Luton-Stevenage link was one
being looked at by the councils-backed East West Rail group, and yes, it
would be ambitions, but to secure a line from Bedford to Cambridge, you
have to look at ALL options.....

SB

I'm firmly of the position that upgrading the Chiltern line as
Crossrail's second western branch would provide much greater benefits
than sending the Tring stoppers down it. The Chiltern main line has
huge potential for growth, somewhat hampered by the infrastructure
available. Wiring it up, extending the platforms and widening the
inner section to 4 tracks so an intensive service could be provided
would do wonders for that slice of the world. Conversely, the best the
WCML option can offer is relief to Euston (which doesn't really need
any for NR services at least), and better connections to OOC. The two
are worlds away in terms of benefits. Additionally, diverting the
suburban services away from Marylebone actually relives a terminal
station with SEVERE capacity problems, unlike Euston. The released
capacity could then be used to enhance the new Chiltern mainline
services or indeed their services via Amersham.

As pointed out here before, the southern WCML slow lines could
possibly be squeezed a bit more than they are - I don't have the
actual numbers to hand, but IIRC it's only 2tph to Tring, with 1tph to
MK, 1tph to Northampton, Southern's 2tph to MK (plus 1tph to Crewe and
1tph to BNS), some of which actually move onto the fast lines at
Leighton Buzzard. The 12-car trains are busy, but they're only really
crush loaded during disruption. You could probably squeeze a couple
more tph down there without impacting the freight paths to Wembley too
much, but it's pretty much a mature market with little scope for
growth. I'm more inclined that if you /really/ felt the need to
relieve Euston to free up platforms, then a short 2-3 mile tunnel
(Euston LL-TCR-Waterloo LL) would do well as you would have the
interchange to Crossrail at TCR, and could link up with the SWT
suburban services, relieving Waterloo NR as well. Additional, by
removing the Southern service from the West London Line you free up
paths for LO. Throw in a short tunnel from South Hampstead/Camden to
Neasden and you can also pull the main Chiltern lines from the Met
route and take over the fast services via HotH & Moor Park, freeing up
even more capacity at Marylebone for more mainline services.- Hide quoted text -

You make a very good case. Unfortunately the difference in price tag
would be enormous. Utilizing the Chiltern mainline would entail
widening, electrification, signal immunization, platform lengthening,
etc., etc.

The WCML slow AC pair connection would be a link across railway owned
land at OOC.

Your Euston, TCR, Waterloo tunnel is optimistic. The WCML descends
steeply down Camden Bank, your tunnel would have pass below the H&C.
I am not saying this is not doable. But, a survey might throw up some
interesting challenges. That said, bits of this route already exist.
During WW2 a start was made on a main line gauge tube paralleling the
Northern line,

On May 22, 9:48*am, 77002 wrote:
On May 21, 7:58*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:







On May 21, 1:11*pm, Steve Broadbent wrote:

In article ,
*Michael Bell wrote:

Brighton Main Line 2.

I was tickled by an article on this in RAIL No 696 *page 11. I had
heard of re-instating the Oxford Cambridge line, heard of it may be
too often, but I had never heard of BML2!.

And page 68, talk of diverting WCML MK - Watford into Crossrail. Isn't
Crossrail going to be full enough?

And talk of building a wholly new route across "relatively hilly
country" (really steep country and very pretty) from near Luton to
Stevenage as part of an East-West route. If we have the trouble we
have to get a *major* route through the Chilterns, what chances of
getting a minor route through the eastern end of the Chilterns?

What "traction" do these ideas have?

Michael Bell

--

I am very pleased to hear I have tickled you... I have done a lot on
BML2 over the past year or more, and the related Lewes-Uckfield opening,
in RAIL. To put BML2 in context, it is a proposal by an enthusiastic
campaign group keen t see a resolution of the Uckfield and Brighton Main
Line problems, and they can hardly be blamed for trying. The latest
idea, connecting through to Stratford, came, they say, directly as a
result of talking with the rail minister.

Thanks to ardent campaigning BML2 does seem to be gaining real traction,
as you put it, even if it is costly and far off, but is there any other
solution.

I see you also mention the possibility of putting Milton Keynes-Euston
services onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common, again this has ben related
several times in RAIL, although it does not appear to be very active.
Those who support it see it being, inter alia, a relief for Euston when
HS2 starts to be built.

On the other hand, the suggestion of a Luton-Stevenage link was one
being looked at by the councils-backed East West Rail group, and yes, it
would be ambitions, but to secure a line from Bedford to Cambridge, you
have to look at ALL options.....

SB

I'm firmly of the position that upgrading the Chiltern line as
Crossrail's second western branch would provide much greater benefits
than sending the Tring stoppers down it. The Chiltern main line has
huge potential for growth, somewhat hampered by the infrastructure
available. Wiring it up, extending the platforms and widening the
inner section to 4 tracks so an intensive service could be provided
would do wonders for that slice of the world. Conversely, the best the
WCML option can offer is relief to Euston (which doesn't really need
any for NR services at least), and better connections to OOC. The two
are worlds away in terms of benefits. Additionally, diverting the
suburban services away from Marylebone actually relives a terminal
station with SEVERE capacity problems, unlike Euston. The released
capacity could then be used to enhance the new Chiltern mainline
services or indeed their services via Amersham.

As pointed out here before, the southern WCML slow lines could
possibly be squeezed a bit more than they are - I don't have the
actual numbers to hand, but IIRC it's only 2tph to Tring, with 1tph to
MK, 1tph to Northampton, Southern's 2tph to MK (plus 1tph to Crewe and
1tph to BNS), some of which actually move onto the fast lines at
Leighton Buzzard. The 12-car trains are busy, but they're only really
crush loaded during disruption. You could probably squeeze a couple
more tph down there without impacting the freight paths to Wembley too
much, but it's pretty much a mature market with little scope for
growth. I'm more inclined that if you /really/ felt the need to
relieve Euston to free up platforms, then a short 2-3 mile tunnel
(Euston LL-TCR-Waterloo LL) would do well as you would have the
interchange to Crossrail at TCR, and could link up with the SWT
suburban services, relieving Waterloo NR as well. Additional, by
removing the Southern service from the West London Line you free up
paths for LO. Throw in a short tunnel from South Hampstead/Camden to
Neasden and you can also pull the main Chiltern lines from the Met
route and take over the fast services via HotH & Moor Park, freeing up
even more capacity at Marylebone for more mainline services.- Hide quoted text -

You make a very good case. *Unfortunately the difference in price tag
would be enormous. *Utilizing the Chiltern mainline would entail
widening, electrification, signal immunization, platform lengthening,
etc., etc.

Indeed. A good follow on project, but it's one of the few things that
annoys me about the HS2 plans to surface west of OOC then descend at
Northolt means it can't be considered in the future for the sake of a
few miles of surface running. Ultimately, these works will eventually
need to happen to the Chiltern line within the next 10-20 years,
planning ahead just makes sense as all you'd need to do is construct
the earthworks for the flying junction west of OOC and leave HS2 in
tunnel between OOC and Northolt. Handily the HS2 alternatives docs for
rail package 2 and its ilk provide good data on what's possible. To me
at least they're not so much alternatives - the only option is which
you build first.

The WCML slow AC pair connection would be a link across railway owned
land at OOC.

It will have to be very windy (read: slow), and would have a set of
platforms quite far away from the main OOC platforms unless the route
essentially did a 90 degree chicane to squeeze alongside the GWML/HS2
platforms. I'd prefer reinstating (though with better arrangements
than previously) Willesden Junction's mainline platforms. A pair of
islands on the slow lines serving each direction would provide enough
capacity to prevent the additional stop being detrimental, and a
single (lockable) island for the fast lines would be useful for use
during disruptions. Another island for the WLL services would complete
the picture (with a turnback siding beyond), but removal of the
Southern services due to the other CR3 proposal would make it
unnecessary. Access to OOC woudl be provided by the frequent LO
service.

Your Euston, TCR, Waterloo tunnel is optimistic. *The WCML descends
steeply down Camden Bank, your tunnel would have pass below the H&C.
I am not saying this is not doable. *But, a survey might throw up some
interesting challenges. *That said, bits of this route already exist.
During WW2 a start was made on a main line gauge tube paralleling the
Northern line,

I doubt those tunnels would be of much use. In truth, the 3 mile
shortest option between Euston and Waterloo is the minimal case. The
greatest benefits would
probably be to tunnel between Willesden and Clapham Junctions as it
would relieve the terminal approaches as well as the platforms. I
suspect it would be more than fine though - after all, BR's 1980's
Crossrail proposal had a tunnel from Euston to Victoria planned, so
I'm confident things would be viable. Not to mention, the existing
platforms are roughly on the same level as the SSL lines, themselves
very shallow under the surface. The new tunnel would probably only
have to descend 5-6 metres more to clear it. Of far more concern would
be everything else down there - Though, that said, Crossrail at
Paddington is in exactly the same boat and again it doesn't seem to be
an issue.

On 2012\05\22 10:47, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I doubt those tunnels would be of much use. In truth, the 3 mile
shortest option between Euston and Waterloo is the minimal case. The
greatest benefits would
probably be to tunnel between Willesden and Clapham Junctions as it
would relieve the terminal approaches as well as the platforms.

If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar
platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo
are underused: the Richmond lines have hardly any trains on them.

On May 22, 10:47*am, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On May 22, 9:48*am, 77002 wrote:





On May 21, 7:58*pm, Jamie *Thompson wrote:

On May 21, 1:11*pm, Steve Broadbent wrote:

In article ,
*Michael Bell wrote:

Brighton Main Line 2.

I was tickled by an article on this in RAIL No 696 *page 11. I had
heard of re-instating the Oxford Cambridge line, heard of it may be
too often, but I had never heard of BML2!.

And page 68, talk of diverting WCML MK - Watford into Crossrail. Isn't
Crossrail going to be full enough?

And talk of building a wholly new route across "relatively hilly
country" (really steep country and very pretty) from near Luton to
Stevenage as part of an East-West route. If we have the trouble we
have to get a *major* route through the Chilterns, what chances of
getting a minor route through the eastern end of the Chilterns?

What "traction" do these ideas have?

Michael Bell

--

I am very pleased to hear I have tickled you... I have done a lot on
BML2 over the past year or more, and the related Lewes-Uckfield opening,
in RAIL. To put BML2 in context, it is a proposal by an enthusiastic
campaign group keen t see a resolution of the Uckfield and Brighton Main
Line problems, and they can hardly be blamed for trying. The latest
idea, connecting through to Stratford, came, they say, directly as a
result of talking with the rail minister.

Thanks to ardent campaigning BML2 does seem to be gaining real traction,
as you put it, even if it is costly and far off, but is there any other
solution.

I see you also mention the possibility of putting Milton Keynes-Euston
services onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common, again this has ben related
several times in RAIL, although it does not appear to be very active.
Those who support it see it being, inter alia, a relief for Euston when
HS2 starts to be built.

On the other hand, the suggestion of a Luton-Stevenage link was one
being looked at by the councils-backed East West Rail group, and yes, it
would be ambitions, but to secure a line from Bedford to Cambridge, you
have to look at ALL options.....

SB

I'm firmly of the position that upgrading the Chiltern line as
Crossrail's second western branch would provide much greater benefits
than sending the Tring stoppers down it. The Chiltern main line has
huge potential for growth, somewhat hampered by the infrastructure
available. Wiring it up, extending the platforms and widening the
inner section to 4 tracks so an intensive service could be provided
would do wonders for that slice of the world. Conversely, the best the
WCML option can offer is relief to Euston (which doesn't really need
any for NR services at least), and better connections to OOC. The two
are worlds away in terms of benefits. Additionally, diverting the
suburban services away from Marylebone actually relives a terminal
station with SEVERE capacity problems, unlike Euston. The released
capacity could then be used to enhance the new Chiltern mainline
services or indeed their services via Amersham.

As pointed out here before, the southern WCML slow lines could
possibly be squeezed a bit more than they are - I don't have the
actual numbers to hand, but IIRC it's only 2tph to Tring, with 1tph to
MK, 1tph to Northampton, Southern's 2tph to MK (plus 1tph to Crewe and
1tph to BNS), some of which actually move onto the fast lines at
Leighton Buzzard. The 12-car trains are busy, but they're only really
crush loaded during disruption. You could probably squeeze a couple
more tph down there without impacting the freight paths to Wembley too
much, but it's pretty much a mature market with little scope for
growth. I'm more inclined that if you /really/ felt the need to
relieve Euston to free up platforms, then a short 2-3 mile tunnel
(Euston LL-TCR-Waterloo LL) would do well as you would have the
interchange to Crossrail at TCR, and could link up with the SWT
suburban services, relieving Waterloo NR as well. Additional, by
removing the Southern service from the West London Line you free up
paths for LO. Throw in a short tunnel from South Hampstead/Camden to
Neasden and you can also pull the main Chiltern lines from the Met
route and take over the fast services via HotH & Moor Park, freeing up
even more capacity at Marylebone for more mainline services.- Hide quoted text -

You make a very good case. *Unfortunately the difference in price tag
would be enormous. *Utilizing the Chiltern mainline would entail
widening, electrification, signal immunization, platform lengthening,
etc., etc.

Indeed. A good follow on project, but it's one of the few things that
annoys me about the HS2 plans to surface west of OOC then descend at
Northolt means it can't be considered in the future for the sake of a
few miles of surface running. Ultimately, these works will eventually
need to happen to the Chiltern line within the next 10-20 years,
planning ahead just makes sense as all you'd need to do is construct
the earthworks for the flying junction west of OOC and leave HS2 in
tunnel between OOC and Northolt. Handily the HS2 alternatives docs for
rail package 2 and its ilk provide good data on what's possible. To me
at least they're not so much alternatives - the only option is which
you build first.

The WCML slow AC pair connection would be a link across railway owned
land at OOC.

It will have to be very windy (read: slow), and would have a set of
platforms quite far away from the main OOC platforms unless the route
essentially did a 90 degree chicane to squeeze alongside the GWML/HS2
platforms. I'd prefer reinstating (though with better arrangements
than previously) Willesden Junction's mainline platforms. A pair of
islands on the slow lines serving each direction would provide enough
capacity to prevent the additional stop being detrimental, and a
single (lockable) island for the fast lines would be useful for use
during disruptions. Another island for the WLL services would complete
the picture (with a turnback siding beyond), but removal of the
Southern services due to the other CR3 proposal would make it
unnecessary. Access to OOC woudl be provided by the frequent LO
service.

Your Euston, TCR, Waterloo tunnel is optimistic. *The WCML descends
steeply down Camden Bank, your tunnel would have pass below the H&C.
I am not saying this is not doable. *But, a survey might throw up some
interesting challenges. *That said, bits of this route already exist.
During WW2 a start was made on a main line gauge tube paralleling the
Northern line,

I doubt those tunnels would be of much use. In truth, the 3 mile
shortest option between Euston and Waterloo is the minimal case. The
greatest benefits would
probably be to tunnel between Willesden and Clapham Junctions as it
would relieve the terminal approaches as well as the platforms. I
suspect it would be more than fine though - after all, BR's 1980's
Crossrail proposal had a tunnel from Euston to Victoria planned, so
I'm confident things would be viable. Not to mention, the existing
platforms are roughly on the same level as the SSL lines, themselves
very shallow under the surface. The new tunnel would probably only
have to descend 5-6 metres more to clear it. Of far more concern would
be everything else down there - Though, that said, Crossrail at
Paddington is in exactly the same boat and again it doesn't seem to be
an issue.

The mainline platforms at Euston are at street level. It is the
Headhouse that is raised on an artificial plinth. It is arty, 1960s
concrete commie stupidity.

But, I take the point that if BR thought they could take a mainline
tube below the H&C and on the Victoria, it is probably doable.

On May 22, 12:57*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2012\05\22 10:47, Jamie Thompson wrote:



I doubt those tunnels would be of much use. In truth, the 3 mile
shortest option between Euston and Waterloo is the minimal case. The
greatest benefits would
probably be to tunnel between Willesden and Clapham Junctions as it
would relieve the terminal approaches as well as the platforms.

If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar
platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo
are underused: the Richmond lines have hardly any trains on them.

Bringing the Windsor side of Waterloo back is taking an inordinate
amount of time.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar
platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo

Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to
local trains the day after eurostar moved out.

B2003

On May 22, 1:58*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100

Basil Jet wrote:
If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar
platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo

Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to
local trains the day after eurostar moved out.

I suspect, at the very least, some signalling changes would have been
in order. There may have been a need for PIS changes. I am not sure
about track changes.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar
platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo

Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to
local trains the day after eurostar moved out.

Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I suspect
that passengers would have been infuriated at the tortuous route between the
concourse and those platforms.

Peter

On May 22, 2:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote in message

... On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:57:37 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
If there is that much need to relieve Waterloo, why are the Eurostar
platforms sitting there gathering dust? AFAIK the approaches to Waterloo

Good question. Idiot politics no doubt. They could have been switched to
local trains the day after eurostar moved out.

Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I suspect
that passengers would have been infuriated at the tortuous route between the
concourse and those platforms.

Thanks Peter, I had forgotten about the platform height. I still have
to believe that putting the Windsor line services back on their own
side of the station would be a good thing.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

that passengers would have been infuriated at the tortuous route between the
concourse and those platforms.

Not as infuriated as not having a train to get on because there's no free
platform.

B2003