Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then that there
would be no further rail use? I guess 10 years ago another two platforms at
Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

One is obviously still in use, and the other two must have been for
when there was a big freight operation at Marylebone.

I can't see any use for them now - you'd need more platforms at
Marylebone and a way of four tracking at least to Neasden.

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

"Colin McKenzie" wrote

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

I suspect that the easiest way to increase capacity on the Chiltern Met Line
would be to extend platforms to allow 8 coach trains. If capacity for more
trains into Central London from the Joint Line is needed then Old Oak to
Northolt Junction should be redoubled and the linespeed brought back to
90/100 mph. There should be platform capacity at Paddington when Crossrail
opens, and there are tentative plans for additional platforms if needed.

Marylebone of course has two extra platforms already, but I don't think
there is scope for any more.

Peter

On 11 Apr, 12:09, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

I suspect that the easiest way to increase capacity on the Chiltern Met Line
would be to extend platforms to allow 8 coach trains. If capacity for more
trains into Central London from the Joint Line is needed then Old Oak to
Northolt Junction should be redoubled and the linespeed brought back to
90/100 mph. There should be platform capacity at Paddington when Crossrail
opens, and there are tentative plans for additional platforms if needed.

Marylebone of course has two extra platforms already, but I don't think
there is scope for any more.

Given what's happening with the ELL (which should have simply been
reextended into Liverpool Street to use capacity freed by Crossrail),
they'd probably divert trains away from Marylebone to terminate at
West Brompton or something.

On Apr 11, 4:09*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

I suspect that the easiest way to increase capacity on the Chiltern Met Line
would be to extend platforms to allow 8 coach trains. If capacity for more
trains into Central London from the Joint Line is needed then Old Oak to
Northolt Junction should be redoubled and the linespeed brought back to
90/100 mph. There should be platform capacity at Paddington when Crossrail
opens, and there are tentative plans for additional platforms if needed.

That is true.

Marylebone of course has two extra platforms already, but I don't think
there is scope for any more.

Not without reclaiming some of the area originally planned to have
platforms but subsequently sold off for building.

It would be a very expensive excersize.

On 11 Apr, 11:03, Colin McKenzie wrote:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.

A quick scroll through Google Earth will tell you quite easy for the
first few miles, then you start having to build new viaducts and
demolish long rows of houses. Tunnelling would probably be easier.

- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

Not just feasible, already built. But you'd need many more platforms
to make use of four tracks. Again a tunnel into central London would
be a better option.

(you might like to check out Crossrail plans ca. 2001)

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then
that there would be no further rail use? I guess 10 years ago
another two platforms at Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835


Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Paul

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then
that there would be no further rail use? I guess 10 years ago
another two platforms at Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835


Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell
the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

I suspect that it went to the BR Property Board, rather than to Railtrack,
at privatisation. I don't think there were any controls to stop BR Property
Board selling off assets, as they had been determined in BR days to be
irrelevant to the operational railway.

Peter

On Apr 11, 8:08*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Apr, 19:25, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Were Railtrack really able to make a permanent decision back then
that there would be no further rail use? *I guess 10 years ago
another two platforms at Marylebone weren't on the agenda either...

It would appear there are three double track tunnels:
http://prints.leics.gov.uk/low.php?xp=media&xm=670835

Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?
I know there's spare space between the platforms at Wembley Stadium,
and IMO the potential traffic would justify quadrupling at least to
West Ruislip, if not to High Wycombe.
- are the two extra Marylebone platforms mentioned by Paul feasible?

They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. *Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Probably not. But, they were different times. Twice the closure of
Marylebone was discussed. Second time round the effort started to
look serious.

Paul Scott wrote:
They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Paul

I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. I
would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to
disrupt Lords again. Although there are two tunnel entrances at the
Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't
think the tunnel was ever built. Certainly as the line crosses the WCML
there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. To put track into
the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel
/ tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. Past this area,
houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can
almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open!

--
Matthew P Jones
Amersham News & Views www.amersham.org.uk
Metroland www.metroland.org.uk

On Apr 11, 11:59*am, Matthew Jones wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
They are already there - what I was noting was that the decision to sell the
spare tunnel must have been taken well before the decision to provide more
capacity at Marylebone, ie the 2 recently opened. *Just wondering aloud if
the sale would still have gone ahead if the 'Evergreen 2' improvements had
been agreed...

Paul

I believe it is only part of the route which has multiple tunnels. *I
would imagine they built more in the Lords area so as not to have to
disrupt Lords again. *Although there are two tunnel entrances at the
Canfield Place end, the second tunnel mouth is only a mouth, I don't
think the tunnel was ever built. *Certainly as the line crosses the WCML
there is no evidence of a second tunnel either side. *To put track into
the extra Lords tunnels would require a very expensive additional tunnel
/ tunnels towards Finchley Road / Canfield Place. *Past this area,
houses would need to be knocked down for extra track, as it is, one can
almost reach the houses if the window of the train was open!

One has often wondered just how far those tunnels reach. I suspect
you analysis is close to the truth.

Something about the LNWR/WCML crossing gives the impression that two
tracks were intended to be added on the western side of the ones
actually build. I think it is the space between the tunnel mouths and
the bridge.