In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

;155038 Wrote:

The line between Woking and Weymouth was electrified in
the 1960s at very low cost. I used to travel on that route
frequently. The third rail system did not stop those trains from-

The 1967 electrification only extended to Bournemouth and ended steam on
the Southern Region. 12-car trains consisted of two 4-TC unpowered 4-car
units with a 4-REP tractor unit at the London end. A class 33 diesel
took the front 4-TC unit on to Weymouth and back. Some workings used
class 73s with a 3-TC unit at the London end instead of the 4-REP. Later
they converted more 4-REPs and extended the 3-TCs to 4 cars. Then the
electrification was extended to Weymouth in the 1990s and introduced the
class 442 Wessex electrics, re-using the REP traction motors which are
higher-powered than any others used on EMU stock.

Thank for the correction. My memory playing tricks again! However,
coming back to the idea that third rail limits high speed running,
what speeds are routinely achieved between Southampton and
Woking?

I think the lesson from the Eurostar before HS1 fiasco is that it's the
limitation on power drawn that is the speed problem. Downhill or on the
level they manage 100 MPH occasionally but 125 is but a distant dream.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote:

;155038 Wrote:

The line between Woking and Weymouth was electrified in
the 1960s at very low cost. I used to travel on that route
frequently. The third rail system did not stop those trains from-

The 1967 electrification only extended to Bournemouth and ended steam on
the Southern Region. 12-car trains consisted of two 4-TC unpowered 4-car
units with a 4-REP tractor unit at the London end. A class 33 diesel
took the front 4-TC unit on to Weymouth and back. Some workings used
class 73s with a 3-TC unit at the London end instead of the 4-REP. Later
they converted more 4-REPs and extended the 3-TCs to 4 cars. Then the
electrification was extended to Weymouth in the 1990s and introduced the
class 442 Wessex electrics, re-using the REP traction motors which are
higher-powered than any others used on EMU stock.

Thank for the correction. My memory playing tricks again! However,
coming back to the idea that third rail limits high speed running,
what speeds are routinely achieved between Southampton and
Woking?

I think the lesson from the Eurostar before HS1 fiasco is that it's the
limitation on power drawn that is the speed problem. Downhill or on the
level they manage 100 MPH occasionally but 125 is but a distant dream.

No doubt that's true, but what does that have to do with infrequent
four-car EMUs on a 75mph max line?

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill. Beyond Aylesbury there is upcoming
development at Aylesbury Vale.

Waddesden is certainly capable of having some residential
construction close to the old Manor Station.

Grandborough Road has potential to become a park and ride for the
surrounding area, along with a new hamlet of select residences.

Verney Junction, the crossroads with the new East West route, is
perfectly positioned for a new "Verney Garden Village". Some
sympathetic enlargement of Buckingham would be in order.

Brackley has expended considerably since it lost both stations. There
is surely room some further increase. At Banbury the route re-joins
the extant railway to Birmingham.

Between Granborough Road and Winslow a new curve would allow a thru
service from "old Metro-land" to Milton Keynes. Winslow is also an
excellent sight for a new garden town.

We see here a new, 21st century Metro-Land if you will.
No doubt some will say this cannot be done, it will lose money, etc.
This development would probably give more utility and be much less of
a drain on resource than some Beehcing survivors like the Cambrian
Coast route. It would do as well as any other Home Counties commuter
route. Moreover it brings Buckingham and Brackley back into the
railway fold.

I don't say it cannot be done but I do say it would lose money.
It most certainly would not do as well as most other Home Counties
commuter routes because at present rural Buckinghamshire does
not have the population. Winslow is a small town, Verney Junction
no more than a hamlet. Only if we go back to pre-Thatcher social
planning and move large numbers of Londoners out to this particular
area - extremely unlikely - will these small towns generate enough
business to justify the kind of investment you are suggesting.

Many thanks, though, for the historical background.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:06:13 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


e27002 aurora Wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:

I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

Mega snipping.

We see here a new, 21st century Metro-Land if you will.
No doubt some will say this cannot be done, it will lose money, etc.
This development would probably give more utility and be much less of
a drain on resource than some Beeching survivors like the Cambrian
Coast route. It would do as well as any other Home Counties commuter
route. Moreover it brings Buckingham and Brackley back into the
railway fold.

I don't say it cannot be done but I do say it would lose money.
It most certainly would not do as well as most other Home Counties
commuter routes because at present South Buckinghamshire does
not have the population.

Brackley has a population of 13.5 thousand. A thousand new quality
homes of vary size would yield an increase of say 3 thousand for a
total of 16,500. Buckingham has a population of 12 thousand. Again
an increase of 100 homes, thee thousand souls is not unrealistic. This
is a combined population of over 30,000. Linking this area to London,
Harrow, Amersham, and Aylesbury from the south, and Banbury,
Leamington, Warwick, Solihull to the north would seem worthwhile.

Winslow is a small town,

But, Winslow could accommodate some more quality housing.

Verney Junction
no more than a hamlet.

Mr Clegg, former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, has suggested
new towns be added along the new East West rail route. I agree with
this. It would take some London overspill. Moreover the new towns
would have direct rail links with each other. A village of 1,000
homes around Verney Junction would not be an unreasonable contribution
to the housing shortage.

Only if we go back to pre-Thatcher social
planning and move large numbers of Londoners out to this particular
area - extremely unlikely - will these small towns generate enough
business to justify the kind of investment you are suggesting.

IMHO a government role in planning and zoning is essential. Who else
is going to do it?

The London population explosion is reaching breaking point. It is
only a matter of time before a politician urges lifting of the green
belt restrictions. If such counsel is followed, within decades an
urban sprawl will spread around today's London.

Having lived in a mega-conurbation, Los Angeles, with its attendant
congestion, and serious social problems, I cannot urge taking another
course in strong enough terms. We owe future generations better.

Many thanks, though, for the historical background.

You are really very welcome. The area is close to my heart. I grew
near Aylesbury.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill. Beyond Aylesbury there is upcoming
development at Aylesbury Vale.

Given modern control system and multi-voltage trains, it might be more
economic to lay down a third rail from Marylebone to Harrow, while
retain the fourth rail between there and Amersham the same way other
section which run both 3rd and 3rd/4th rail together.

This would avoid the cost of raising the tunnel between Marylebone and
Finchley Road, and of rebuilding bridges.

This is also something I have suggested for some main line situations,
too - 25KvAC in the country where they can use the power for speed,
and 3rd rail in the cities to avoid the cost of major infrastructure
rebuilding.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.
snip

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.

What's wrong with just using 3rd rail beyond Amersham, just as the DC line
does beyond Harrow? The S stock is likely to be around till around 2060,
and I don't really care what happens then.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:56:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

Expensive. Why not electrify from Harrow to Marylebone with 3rd (or
3rd/4th) rail? No bridge and tunnel rebuilding.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.

What's wrong with just using 3rd rail beyond Amersham, just as the DC line
does beyond Harrow? The S stock is likely to be around till around 2060,
and I don't really care what happens then.

Aren't there proposals to link up with the Varsity line via Quainton
Road and Calvert?

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:56:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:27:40 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 09:32:36 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


I'm re-reading G. F. Fiennes autobiography "I Tried To Run
A Railway" and came across his assertion that the Bletchley
fly-over was a monument to those who did not recognise that
the railway should concentrate on a few main routes and
abandon routes which were not self-financing.

It's years since I last travelled on the WCML so I have to ask.
Does the Bletchley flyover still exist or was it dismantled?

Incidentally, a few mile west of Bletchley on the route the
fly-over was to serve lies Verney Junction, now of course
closed for decades. I was there a few weeks ago. To my
surprise the track in still in place and the station platforms
have not been demolished. Nor has the overhead bridge which,
I guess, brought in the line from Aylesbury.

Some background here. Verney Junction was at the heart of a system
of lines designed to serve the disconnected neighboring communities in
the north of the County of Buckingham. The promoters were local land
owners Sir Harry Verney and the Duke of Buckingham.

The first route Completed in May 1850 connected Banbury with
Bletchley. The following year the branch from Verney Junction to
Oxford was also opened. At that time there was no station at Verney
Junction, merely the bifurcation of the two routes. In 1878 these
routes, hitherto operated by the LNWR, were absorbed.

The LNWR showed no interest in constructing the fourth leg of the
system down to Aylesbury, the county seat. So Sir Harry and the Duke
progressed Aylesbury to Verney Junction as an independent route, the
"Aylesbury & Buckingham" (A&B). Had the LNWR agreed to work the A&B,
Exchange Street in Aylesbury would have been a railway.

However, this was not to be, and after conversion of the Maidenhead to
Aylesbury GWR route to Standard gauge, the GWR worked the route
onwards to Verney Junction. A station was constructed at the
junction, were GWR passenger trains terminated, and freight was
interchanged with the LNWR.

After 20 years of this arrangement the Metropolitan Railway reached
Aylesbury, absorbed the A&B, and took over its operation. This
arrangement continued until London Transport reduced the A&B to a long
siding. Eventually the nationalized railway closed all of the routes
in the area.

AFIK the only time the vision of a thru service from the Aylesbury to
Buckingham was realized was the Duke's funeral train.

Would these routes have utility today? Absolutely. Given London's
desperate need for relief to its overflowing population, picture this:
A 25kV Chiltern upgrade from Marylebone taking over the TfL fast pair
north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.

Expensive. Why not electrify from Harrow to Marylebone with 3rd (or
3rd/4th) rail? No bridge and tunnel rebuilding.

No need to take over. By that time it might be sensible to make the
further parts of the Met. (past either Moor Park or Ricky ?) 25kV with
something on the lines of a cross between S stock and a 377/378 using
AC/DC. Harrow to the changeover could then remain dual-electrified
until S stock dies out (which won't be this week), shrinking back the
DC to Baker Street if not eliminating it from the SSL altogether if
one of the original plans to use OHLE could be implemented with more
modern technology.

What's wrong with just using 3rd rail beyond Amersham, just as the DC line
does beyond Harrow? The S stock is likely to be around till around 2060,
and I don't really care what happens then.

Aren't there proposals to link up with the Varsity line via Quainton
Road and Calvert?

Yes, using the existing single track line from Aylesbury Vale to Calvert,
probably realigned slightly where HS2 takes over some of its track bed.