On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 03:13:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home".

Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.

Guy Gorton

Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.

According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.

IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and station to Snow
Hill.

Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:49:45 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 03:13:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home".

Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.

Guy Gorton

Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.

According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.

IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and station to Snow
Hill.

Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And what about the existing fast service to Snow Hill, first stop
Banbury? Your idea of all-stations stoppers would make a nonsense of
the 100mph investment.

Guy Gorton

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:49:45 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And the Oxford Parkway route? Fast, convenient, soon to be extended
to Oxford. Having observed the crowds heading for Bicester Village, I
suggest virtually all the patronage is from central London, not sundry
stations NW of Marylebone. Some of the trains are already non-stop
Marylebone to/from Bicester Village, some with one stop.

Guy Gorton

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:48:24 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:49:45 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:21:31 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 03:13:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Oh, and you can't have Blind Lane box back, it's has a new "forever home".

Rob.

Glad to hear that! I have often looked hard for any sign of its
former existence, but there is nothing left.

Guy Gorton

Blind Lane signal box is, appropriately enough, now at Rothley, on the
preserved GCR section.

According to Network Rail's Draft West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Study there are plans to run Chiltern Trains from Old Common to the
West Midlands by way of a four track section from Northolt Junction.
Actually the study says from Denham. But Northolt to West Ruislip is
already multi track. So it would be wise to have four Network Rail
tracks from Northolt.

IMHO it would make sense for an OOC to Snow Hill service to call at
West Ruislip, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough and station to Snow
Hill.

Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And what about the existing fast service to Snow Hill, first stop
Banbury? Your idea of all-stations stoppers would make a nonsense of
the 100mph investment.

Guy,

It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:54:39 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:49:45 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

Meanwhile services from Marylebone on the old GCGW could run all
stations to Aylesbury with some trains turning back at Gerard Cross
and Prices Risborough. The interchanges at Sudbury Hill (with the
Piccadilly Line) and West Ruislip (with the Central Line) should be
greatly improved.

And the Oxford Parkway route? Fast, convenient, soon to be extended
to Oxford. Having observed the crowds heading for Bicester Village, I
suggest virtually all the patronage is from central London, not sundry
stations NW of Marylebone. Some of the trains are already non-stop
Marylebone to/from Bicester Village, some with one stop.

Guy Gorton

The Oxford trains would use the fast pair to Princes Risborough, thus
accelerating the service.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!

Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


e27002 aurora;157776 Wrote:

It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!

Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.

Most stations on the GCGW joint route were four platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Sadly, the socialists and their nationalized railway did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.

(1) for some perverse value of good.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
wrote:

Corrected versio.

e27002 aurora;157776 Wrote:


It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!

Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.

(1) for some perverse value of good.

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 19:05:57 UTC+1, e27002 wrote:
Guy,

It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

If you had read NR's latest Route Study, you'd notice there is NO mention of a four track railway - even to 2043.
Yes, some services are likely to go to OOC, both from the Mail Line & the heartlands stations, which would free up a platform or two / paths from Northolt top Marylebone. This won't help the Metro stations as there is nowhere to start a metro service from - the Ruislips will still need to handle all the services....
Chiltern have no interest in more Metro services as TfL won't pay for them.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 03:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 19:05:57 UTC+1, e27002 wrote:
Guy,

It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

If you had read NR's latest Route Study, you'd notice there is NO mention of a four track railway - even to 2043.
Yes, some services are likely to go to OOC, both from the Mail Line & the heartlands stations, which would free up a platform or two / paths from Northolt top Marylebone. This won't help the Metro stations as there is nowhere to start a metro service from - the Ruislips will still need to handle all the services....
Chiltern have no interest in more Metro services as TfL won't pay for them.

So, I was basing my comments on the news item on pages 20 and 21 of
the July Modern Railways.

You are correct: When one reads the actual study, page 71 reads
"Additional track sections through Beaconsfield, Denham and Princes
Risborough to create four track sections in the
station areas. Reconfiguration of the layout at Princes Risborough
Station to extend Platform 1 and create movements
in both directions for Aylesbury services into and out of Platforms 1
and 2."

Which indicates some restoration of the platform loops removed by the
nationalized railway. An improvement, if a lessor one.

As for metro services these can be raised at franchise renewal time.
Residents should consider contacting their MP(s).