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
your 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.

On Apr 11, 3:03*am, 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

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?

That would probably much easier than increasing capacity on any other
line into the Metropolis. I am not sure how much land has been sold
off over the years. Between Ruislip and Wycombe some of the stations
have been rebuilt in a less than helpful manner. There is nothing
that cannot be reversed.

One has to question whether Marylebone would be the best terminus for
an expanded service on the GW Birmingham route.

Paddington may have some capacity post crossrail. Euston could be
reached by a new link close to Old Oak and it certainly has scope.


Adrian

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
news:8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet
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.

As I recall, Wembley and the two Sudbury stations were four-tracked (two
through lines, two platform lines), but there was only double track
between the stations. Re-instating that arrangement would make it easier
to have more stoppers at those three stations (not something Chiltern
favours), but wouldn't do much for the overall capacity.

"Recliner" wrote

As I recall, Wembley and the two Sudbury stations were four-tracked (two
through lines, two platform lines), but there was only double track
between the stations. Re-instating that arrangement would make it easier
to have more stoppers at those three stations (not something Chiltern
favours), but wouldn't do much for the overall capacity.

IIRC that was the arrangement at all stations between Wembley Hill and
Princes Risborough (both inclusive), with the exceptions of Denham Golf
Club, Seer green, and Saunderton. The only 4-track section was from Northolt
Junction to West Ruislip. Is it still the case that, if an all-stations
train is let out of Marylebone immediately in front of a fast, the fast
can't overtake until Princes Risborough?

Peter

On Apr 11, 4:15*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote

As I recall, Wembley and the two Sudbury stations were four-tracked (two
through lines, two platform lines), but there was only double track
between the stations. Re-instating that arrangement would make it easier
to have more stoppers at those three stations (not something Chiltern
favours), but wouldn't do much for the overall capacity.

IIRC that was the arrangement at all stations between Wembley Hill and
Princes Risborough (both inclusive), with the exceptions of Denham Golf
Club, Seer green, and Saunderton. The only 4-track section was from Northolt
Junction to West Ruislip. Is it still the case that, if an all-stations
train is let out of Marylebone immediately in front of a fast, the fast
can't overtake until Princes Risborough?

Peter

You are I believe correct and that it is the case. Even this is an
improvement. For many years Princes Risborough was reduced to one
thru platform, and I think, one bay.

On Apr 11, 4:03*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message

news:8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet





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.

As I recall, Wembley and the two Sudbury stations were four-tracked (two
through lines, two platform lines), but there was only double track
between the stations. Re-instating that arrangement would make it easier
to have more stoppers at those three stations (not something Chiltern
favours), but wouldn't do much for the overall capacity.

All of which is true. However, the GCR did purchase enough land to
allow for future four tracking. How much of that land is still in
Network ownership I do not know.

It is certainly tragic that every passing loop between Marylebone and
Princes Risborough has been removed. In some cases the formation has
been occupied by new construction.

At some point the lost capacity is going to be needed again. So, much
of the erstwhile construction will have to be undone.

On Apr 11, 7:03 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
As I recall, Wembley and the two Sudbury stations were four-tracked (two
through lines, two platform lines), but there was only double track
between the stations. Re-instating that arrangement would make it easier
to have more stoppers at those three stations (not something Chiltern
favours), but wouldn't do much for the overall capacity.

Not forgetting Northolt Park, which was built by the LNER and only
ever had double track.

Reinstating the quadruple track at Wembley Stadium would be easy - the
new bridge does not block the through line formation and the provision
of some mainline crossovers to replace the reversing siding would be
simple. Reinstating the quadruple track at the Sudbury stations would
involve the demolition of the platforms - easier at the northern
Sudbury than the southern Sudbury.

Northolt Junction to West Ruislip would be very easy to restore as
well, and in fact really should have been done a while ago - the
Ruislip branch of the Central Line may benefit from an increased
Chiltern stopping pattern at West Ruislip. Aside from the silliness at
Denham and a rather silly bridge design choice south of Beaconsfield,
the remaining GW&GC Joint formation is sufficiently wide in all the
right places for additional trackage.

Personally, the main problem with quadrupling the Marylebone-Neasden
segment is not the part between Marylebone and Lords, it's the part
between Lords and Canfield Place and between Canfield Place and
Neasden South Junction; it would cost at least 500 million GBP just to
acquire the right-of-way and get wayleaves to finish the tunneling and
demolish everything to the west of the six-tracking north of Finchley
Road.

Besides, the segment's not at capacity yet - the signalling at
Marylebone throat will handle a train every three minutes, and I know
that at best there can't be that many trains in the peak on that
double track segment, and even if there were the average speed is high
enough IMO to allow four-aspect signalling between Canfield Place and
Neasden South Junction.

TheOneKEA wrote:

Northolt Junction to West Ruislip would be very easy to restore as
well, and in fact really should have been done a while ago - the
Ruislip branch of the Central Line may benefit from an increased
Chiltern stopping pattern at West Ruislip.

Although the down platform at West Ruislip occupies the trackbed of the old
down slow line and would need to be demolished and set back again to its
original alignment. Likewise the up platform at Gerrards Cross (and, as you
mention, the new down platform under construction at Denham).

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...

Northolt Junction to West Ruislip would be very easy to restore as
well, and in fact really should have been done a while ago - the
Ruislip branch of the Central Line may benefit from an increased
Chiltern stopping pattern at West Ruislip.

I thought re-instatement of the quadruple track between Northolt Junction
and West Ruislip was supposed to have been done under Evergreen. Was that
dropped in the end? It's not a long section but it would be useful. As
anyone who lives in the Birmingham area will know[1], the provisions of even
short lengths of 4-track helps run a more robust mix of stoppers and fasts
on an essentially 2-track line.

[1] XC and Worcester fasts delayed by cross-city on the west suburban, ditto
south of Longbridge because there is four-tracking but (duh!) the electric
wires are on the fast line (oh, and we've put in a 15 mph turnout from the
down fast to the Barnt Green platforms), ditto at Burton on Trent (four
tracks but the tracks and platforms are all in the wrong place), ditto (in
different ways) Coventry to Brum to Wolves, and Dorridge to Moor Street.

Regards

Jonathan

In article 8cSdnZ5L0Zmsq2LanZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d@plusnet, Colin McKenzie
writes
Hmm. From a state of ignorance:
- how hard would it be to quadruple to Neasden?

Very. For example, it would be useful to have platforms on either the
Met. or the Chiltern lines at West Hampstead to allow a connection to
Thameslink and the NLL, but there isn't even the room to do that. Adding
two more tracks on that section is a non-starter.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: