I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central
London with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

Surely the real pressure is to turf the suburban services out to provide
more mainline and HS2 capacity?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow
Road. The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction
would be fine and I don't think any demolition would be required. The
Marylebone Line would be expensively interfered with as the new line
went under it or budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds
and Northolt Park would become Overground only with a train from
Euston every twenty minutes terminating at a new platform at South
Ruislip. The existing Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at
the stations would cease to call there and would give an increased
service at Wembley Stadium and South Ruislip instead.

Getting between the Marylebone tracks would be the hard bit because you'd
need to run at local street level or else have a higher embankment and/or
viaduct. It looks practical and modestly priced if you just have a flat
junction, I agree.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to
Wembley Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park
terminators on the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU
from Harrow and Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining
at Wembley Central.

A still modest 12tph though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four
tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some
stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need
rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such
as the expensive new one over the A312. There might also be some property
loss for the chord near Camelot Road.

I suppose the other problem is that that the Chiltern Line will be badly
disrupted for months during the construction, and the number of
beneficiaries isn't large. And most of those already have the option of
using the Piccadilly or Central lines, so the incremental benefit, though
welcome, is quite modest.

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:42:03 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four
tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some
stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need
rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such
as the expensive new one over the A312. There might also be some property
loss for the chord near Camelot Road.

The South Harrow tunnel is cut-and-cover. Some of Newton's photos
show it being built with no spare space.

I suppose the other problem is that that the Chiltern Line will be badly
disrupted for months during the construction, and the number of
beneficiaries isn't large. And most of those already have the option of
using the Piccadilly or Central lines, so the incremental benefit, though
welcome, is quite modest.

Chiltern line users would be very cross about any disruption!

Guy Gorton

On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four
tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some
stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need
rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such
as the expensive new one over the A312.

I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty
minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns?

There might also be some property
loss for the chord near Camelot Road.

Lancelot Road... a curve of the same radius as the curves to Cannon
Street Station would require no demolition IMO, but it would block
Lancelot Road and alternative access to the top half of Lancelot Road
would have to be found, maybe from Rayners Close.

I suppose the other problem is that that the Chiltern Line will be badly
disrupted for months during the construction, and the number of
beneficiaries isn't large. And most of those already have the option of
using the Piccadilly or Central lines, so the incremental benefit, though
welcome, is quite modest.

I'm writing cheques the mayor isn't going to cash. Unless someone
decides to build flats on Stonefield Way and Bradfield Road, which
actually isn't at all unlikely. Who would have thought a couple of years
ago that there would be a "need" for lots of long trains at New
Southgate, of all places?

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four
tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some
stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need
rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such
as the expensive new one over the A312.

I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty
minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns?

Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is
that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services
(up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to
reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was
modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers. But that
introduces more points and signals, which were removed 25 years ago in the
interests of reliability.

On 2016\01\11 21:55, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four
tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some
stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need
rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such
as the expensive new one over the A312.

I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty
minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns?

Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is
that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services
(up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to
reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was
modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers.

.... which would have to have 4 minute dwell times to let the fast train
go from 2 minutes behind to 2 minutes in front. That's worse than
Thameslink! Surely part of the problem is that diesels are distinctly
unwhippetlike... an electric overground service wouldn't present quite
the same problem.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\11 21:55, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four
tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some
stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need
rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such
as the expensive new one over the A312.

I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty
minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns?

Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is
that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services
(up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to
reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was
modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers.

... which would have to have 4 minute dwell times to let the fast train
go from 2 minutes behind to 2 minutes in front. That's worse than
Thameslink! Surely part of the problem is that diesels are distinctly
unwhippetlike... an electric overground service wouldn't present quite
the same problem.

True, the electrics do accelerate much faster, but the average speed over
that section would still be pretty low. You wouldn't need a full four
minute dwell time, as the stoppers will be slowing down and accelerating in
the loops. But there certainly would be an extended dwell time while the
stopper was waiting to be overtaken. Even worse, it might be overtaken by a
flight of 2-3 fast trains.

Also, down LO trains wanting to join the Chiltern line would probably have
to wait for a flight of fast trains to pass at the Sudbury Town junction.
That's why I assumed you meant that the Chiltern would have to be
four-tracked on the shared section.

It all seems like a very expensive way to provide an extra two trains an
hour to three suburban stations that already have an LU alternative.

On 2016\01\11 23:23, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\11 21:55, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\10 15:42, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
I was thinking about what a wasted resource the DC lines from Queens
Park to Euston are. A twin track railway to the edge of Central London
with only 3tph. But what to do with it?

You could build a curve from Wembley Central to Sudbury & Harrow Road.
The DC lines are on the west side here, so a flat junction would be fine
and I don't think any demolition would be required. The Marylebone Line
would be expensively interfered with as the new line went under it or
budged it apart and came up in the middle. The Suds and Northolt Park
would become Overground only with a train from Euston every twenty
minutes terminating at a new platform at South Ruislip. The existing
Marylebone trains which semi-randomly call at the stations would cease
to call there and would give an increased service at Wembley Stadium and
South Ruislip instead.

The doubling of frequency of Overground service from Euston to Wembley
Central would probably mean the end of Stonebridge Park terminators on
the Bakerloo, leaving an off-peak service of 6tph LU from Harrow and
Wealdstone, 3tph LO from Watford and 3tph LO joining at Wembley Central.

I like it personally, but is there room in the South Harrow tunnel for four
tracks? I don't believe that the line was ever four-tracked except at some
stations where there used to be platform loops. Those stations would need
rebuilding. Some of the two-track bridges would also need rebuilding, such
as the expensive new one over the A312.

I wasn't thinking of a fourth or third track. Can't a train every twenty
minutes stopping at three adjacent stations share track with the Chilterns?

Chiltern's argument for having so few trains stopping at those stations is
that they get in the way of the far more important 100mph non-stop services
(up to 8tph) on the same tracks. At the very least, you'd probably have to
reinstate some of the platform loops that were removed when the route was
modernised, so that the fast trains could overtake the stoppers.

... which would have to have 4 minute dwell times to let the fast train
go from 2 minutes behind to 2 minutes in front. That's worse than
Thameslink! Surely part of the problem is that diesels are distinctly
unwhippetlike... an electric overground service wouldn't present quite
the same problem.

True, the electrics do accelerate much faster, but the average speed over
that section would still be pretty low. You wouldn't need a full four
minute dwell time, as the stoppers will be slowing down and accelerating in
the loops. But there certainly would be an extended dwell time while the
stopper was waiting to be overtaken. Even worse, it might be overtaken by a
flight of 2-3 fast trains.

Also, down LO trains wanting to join the Chiltern line would probably have
to wait for a flight of fast trains to pass at the Sudbury Town junction.
That's why I assumed you meant that the Chiltern would have to be
four-tracked on the shared section.

It all seems like a very expensive way to provide an extra two trains an
hour to three suburban stations that already have an LU alternative.


I can't argue with any of that!

On 2016\01\12 00:57, Basil Jet wrote:

I can't argue with any of that!

Another idea... the Greenford Branch is set to become a shuttle from
West Ealing in 2017. Although the frequency will go up from 2tph to
4tph, the curtailment could kill the line off.

With the demolition of parts of two light industrial premises and the
construction of a new curve by North Acton and another curve from
Willesden Junction High Level to Kensal Green, they could run 2tph from
West Ealing - DG - CBP - South Greenford - new platform at North Acton -
Willesden Junction High Level - KG - QP - KHR - SH - Euston. The other
2tph would run West Ealing - Greenford.