Marlow line electrification

[whole diary]

[SandTEngineer]

A four car unit cannot get onto the Bourne End to Marlow branch via platform 1, the distance from points to buffers is too short.   

The problem isn't really difficulty in electrifying the route, it is that there are no suitably short EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) that can fit the existing track layout, and a bespoke rolling stock solution is highly unlikely.   

If there was a short AC EMU, then they'd surely electrify.  An AC/battery EMU possibly couldn't fit all the equipment needed in a short train, so doesn't help.

So it is easier to carry on with short DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), and kick the rolling stock problem into the long grass.

Paul

I thought there was a plan to reconfigure the track layout at Bourne End to allow a 4 car unit to just squeeze in?

[paul7575]

A four car unit cannot get onto the Bourne End to Marlow branch via platform 1, the distance from points to buffers is too short.   

The problem isn't really difficulty in electrifying the route, it is that there are no suitably short EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) that can fit the existing track layout, and a bespoke rolling stock solution is highly unlikely.   

If there was a short AC EMU, then they'd surely electrify.  An AC/battery EMU possibly couldn't fit all the equipment needed in a short train, so doesn't help.

So it is easier to carry on with short DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), and kick the rolling stock problem into the long grass.

Paul

I thought there was a plan to reconfigure the track layout at Bourne End to allow a 4 car unit to just squeeze in?

They're keeping it pretty quiet if there is.  If it were practical to move the points as necessary to provide 80m plus whatever is needed behind the buffers, surely it would be small change compared to the overall GWRM project budget?

Paul

[Electric train]

There are a few technical issues to resolve in feeding the TV branches from the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") power system being deployed on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line).  Also NR^» (Network Rail - home page) needed to rain in its ambitions and the pre 2014 General Election commitments made by all the political parties to put a lid on costs.

Will the TV branches get electrified? yes might be a few years away but the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) will want to standardise on one form of traction

[eightf48544]

I thought there was a plan to reconfigure the track layout at Bourne End to allow a 4 car unit to just squeeze in?

They're keeping it pretty quiet if there is.  If it were practical to move the points as necessary to provide 80m plus whatever is needed behind the buffers, surely it would be small change compared to the overall GWRM project budget?


[/quote]

Edited to add reply.

There is a plan to double the junction at Bourne End  funded by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and the Local Enterprise Board. This will allow a half hourly service to Marlow without change as the trains will pass in Bourne End Station.

However it does not solve the problem of the existing short platform. So it's probably going to be 2*2 Turbos  all day shuttling between Maidenhead and Marlow and no through trains to and from Paddington.

[SandTEngineer]

Well I thought I had read it somewhere....

Western Route Study Draft




Edit note: Link to document amended, for ease of use. CfN.

[grahame]

My understanding was / is that there's a road just behind the buffer stops - on the level - so extension by a carriage length or two towards High Wycombe is impractical at sensible price. And that the branch turns so sharply away that moving the Marlow point out by a carriage length (with implications on other land) isn't straightforward either.  I suspect that re-arranging the alignment so that Bourne End became s single platform, with a loop at Cookham, would allow for a 30 minute service but would still be 3 car limited.  Removing the reversal by moving Bourne End station to the non-existent side of the triangle would probably upset a few people with post houses, and be see as a retrograde step in the campaign to get back to High Wycombe. 

[Electric train]

My understanding was / is that there's a road just behind the buffer stops - on the level - so extension by a carriage length or two towards High Wycombe is impractical at sensible price. And that the branch turns so sharply away that moving the Marlow point out by a carriage length (with implications on other land) isn't straightforward either.  I suspect that re-arranging the alignment so that Bourne End became s single platform, with a loop at Cookham, would allow for a 30 minute service but would still be 3 car limited.  Removing the reversal by moving Bourne End station to the non-existent side of the triangle would probably upset a few people with post houses, and be see as a retrograde step in the campaign to get back to High Wycombe. 

Its been a while since I wandered around trackside at Bourne End, you will be suppressed just how much space there is to move the Marlow line turn out South.  The current layout is the victim of the 1970's closure than a fully planed layout, the used to be a Bay platform for the Marlow services when the line ran through to Wycombe, although the land the bay occupied has been sold. 

Potentially to operate the TV branches some 2 car EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) could be purchased, although I don't think that would be the favoured option by the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)

[ellendune]

I really do not see how route to High Wycombe could be reopened now without completely bypassing Bourne end

[paul7575]

Potentially to operate the TV branches some 2 car EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) could be purchased, although I don't think that would be the favoured option by the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)

But the other two branches can both use normal 4 car trains, so presumably the incoming EMU order already allows for Windsor and Henley?   No plans to electrify Greenford, and 2 car AC EMUs aren't on offer anywhere.

The other two branch's electrification is still in the CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) enhancement plans Mar 2016 update with entry into service shown as later than originally planned, but in Dec 2018:

Deliver a 25kv AC electrification solution for the Twyford to Henley-on-Thames, Slough to Windsor and Eton Central to enable electric traction to operate.

For the avoidance of doubt, electrification of Maidenhead to Bourne End and Marlow branch lines is not included, but Network Rail will support Great Western Railway and other stakeholders to develop their capacity improvements proposals for this section.

I don't think you can consider the 3 branches together anymore, the published intentions are completely different.

Paul

[SandTEngineer]

Like ET I think there is room for a new direct chord with a platform on it with not too far a walk from the current station (this is a view I took in 1969; Crikey was it that long ago ). Bourne End looking South with the line to Maidenhead going off top left and that to Marlow top right.  Bourne End station in the foreground:


Image (c)2016 SandTEngineer

[ellendune]

2 car AC EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) aren't on offer anywhere.

It was my understanding that electrification only stacked up economically for intensely used lines.  If it only has 2 cars it is unlikely to meet that criteria

[SandTEngineer]

Just for completeness here is the view at Bourne End looking the other way.  The buffer stops that Grahame mentioned in his post above are located just the to the nearside of the level crossing (Photograph again taken in 1969).  The train in the distance is approaching from High Wycombe.


Image (c)2016 SandTEngineer

[stuving]

The assumption visible in the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) and Route Study was for electrification and 3-car trains, with no significant work. Officially Platform 1 is 67 m long, so it could take 3x20 m, but not quite 3x23 m. As to where a few 3-car EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) might be found, presumably that was someone else's problem.

The 2019 service is assumed to be 1 tph with a second in the peaks, but no longer running through to Paddington. To run 2 tph through to Marlow, passing at Bourne End, you would need Platform 2 to be connected to Marlow far enough up (60 m) to be used too. Is suspect that's feasible for its radius, but of course it would have to be built and paid for.

In any case, what is discussed is the interchange working as at present. Of course that permits the Maidenhead-Bourne End train to be longer, up to 5-car with the 100 m available (and at Furze Platt and Cookham too). 

The proposed all-day service to be introduced before 2043 is 2 tph, but by that date more capacity is needed as far as Bourne End. The conclusion here reads:

By 2043 peak demand on the Marlow branch will exceed capacity
of the 2019 baseline service frequency between Bourne End and
Maidenhead. Train lengthening beyond 3-cars would address
on-train crowding but is likely to require significant infrastructure
work at Bourne End to increase the length of Platform 1. Increasing
the frequency of the train service to 2tph to meet the connectivity
Conditional Output would also deliver the required peak capacity
whilst removing the need for infrastructure intervention, should an
interchange at Bourne End be made. The longer-term strategy is
therefore to deliver the connectivity Conditional Output on the
Marlow branch.

That's not the clearest, but I think it says 2 tph can be committed to since if they can't stretch platform 1 they can run the peak-hour service all day. How so? The peak capacity can only be improved by more or longer trains on the peak service, which is already 2 tph. So perhaps they are relying on longer trains to Bourne End already.

What isn't mentioned is that each half could quite easily run 3 tph, and even 4 tph in the peaks at a push. And, of course, if you accept Marlow is served by a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) shuttle, you can still electrify to Bourne End (Platform 2 anyway).

I'm sure I've seen a suggestion (possibly from Marlowites) that a new turnout and chord from Platfrom 2 to Marlow could just about allow 80 m of usable platform. It would be a question of whether the smallest radius you dare use would just fit, or whether you might have to beg a sliver of land. But I can't see that attracting any enthusiasm, at least in the short term (which could be over ten years if you are NR^» (Network Rail - home page)), as it would only add to the amount of electrification on the list.

PS: Of course to pass two 4-car trains at Bourne End you'd still need Platform 1 extended to that length anyway. And then there's Marlow, though there's plenty of space to lengthen there. So what about a nice little Swiss-style tram?

[Electric train]

I really do not see how route to High Wycombe could be reopened now without completely bypassing Bourne end

At Bourne End and the former Loudwater Station site it is industrial / commercial premises that sit on the old track bed, compulsory purchase of these would be less problematical that the residential properties on the site of  Wooburne Green  station however there are not that many houses.  On the rest of the route some land has been sold to a farmer and there is some back gardens that have crept onto the old track bed.

Perhaps the most difficult area is at the High Wycombe end near the A40 London Road the embankment has been removed and a retail park and residential properties have been built on the site however a viaduct could carry the line over this.

The reopening is feasible and is practical in engineering terms in financial terms now that is a different matter although High Wycombe District Council have recently debated the possibility of reopening the line and may well include it in their local plan  

[dviner]

Well I thought I had read it somewhere....

Western Route Study Draft

A bit in that which caught my eye:

The suggested all-day 2tph service by changing trains at Bourne End will not be attractive to passengers, given that a high proportion (30%) of Marlow branch customers travel to and from Marlow

I was thinking that the proportion would be nearer 100%, unless there are an exceptionally large amount of one-way journeys.




Edit note: Link to document amended, for ease of use. CfN.