Marlow line electrification

[whole diary]

[Adelante_CCT]

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

Those travelling between Bourne End/Cookham/Furze Platt/Maidenhead make up the other 70%. The 30% just accounts for those journeys that include Bourne End to/from Marlow

(30%) of Marlow branch customers

This referring to the Marlow branch as a whole rather than just the Marlow 'spur'

[eightf48544]

There is an article in this week's Maidenhead Advertiser about reopening to High Wycombe. They are trying to get finance for a feasibility study.

If you look at it re-instating it  the link would provide a line which together with the East West Link at Claydon which would provide direct trains  from the principle towns of the Thames Valley to North Bucks and via Bletchley/Milton Keynes to the West Midlands and via Bedford to the Eat Midlands. Plus an alternative route to Oxford via Bicester town and another route to Birmingham via the Chiltern line. Bucks is an extremely difficult county to get from South to North or even to Aylesbury. If you look \t both the motorways and rail lines they tend to go  West or North West with poor roads between them and the missing rail link between Bourne End and Wycombe.

IMO^▸ (in my opinion) it would make sense to reinstate the link, as heavy rail, to complete the Bucks rail network. 

[ChrisB]

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

Western Route Study Draft




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

That link correct?, CfN? Its MMPA's response to the consultation, not to the Study quoted!

[tom m]

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)

Is SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) not an option for Marlow, rather than an expensive platform extension? I assume that the 387s or other new emus have SDO?

[John R]

I believe it's the fact that a four car train would straddle the points of the two branches. So it would be impossible to enter from one direction (say from Maidenhead) and reverse onto the other line (say to Marlow)? 

[grahame]

I believe it's the fact that a four car train would straddle the points of the two branches. So it would be impossible to enter from one direction (say from Maidenhead) and reverse onto the other line (say to Marlow)? 

Correct ... the only way to get a 4 car unit onto the Marlow to Bourne End section would be 2 coaches at a time.   And I suspect that splitting and joining a unit isn't trivial - even to do it once a week to change units over ...

[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)

Is SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) not an option for Marlow, rather than an expensive platform extension? I assume that the 387s or other new emus have SDO?

Extending the platform at Marlow is not really an issue and the cost relatively small Bourne End is where the problem lies.

I believe it's the fact that a four car train would straddle the points of the two branches. So it would be impossible to enter from one direction (say from Maidenhead) and reverse onto the other line (say to Marlow)? 

Correct ... the only way to get a 4 car unit onto the Marlow to Bourne End section would be 2 coaches at a time.   And I suspect that splitting and joining a unit isn't trivial - even to do it once a week to change units over ...

I believe there is space at Bourne End for the track lay to be changed, also as the Local Authorities (High Wycombe District and Bucks CC) are in favour of improving the rail links to Marlow that some diversion of Station Road could be done to eke out a little more room and changing how the platforms are accessed, instead of a walkway behind the stop block access direct off of the public highway would again some more space.

4 cars to Marlow is do able, just needs the funding which given the new funding model proposed in Nicola Shaw report if High Wycombe District and Bucks CC want it they will need to secure the funding, this may be partly from the Rates. Government grants or planning permission conditions

[tom m]

I believe that changing the track layout at Bourne end has already been discussed.

My question more relates to the possibility of using SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) at restricted stations like Marlow or others in the area due to no 2 car emus?

[ellendune]

I believe that changing the track layout at Bourne end has already been discussed.

My question more relates to the possibility of using SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) at restricted stations like Marlow or others in the area due to no 2 car emus?

I would guess that the use of SDO would depend on the volume of passengers at the station and the implications on dwell time at the station. 

[Electric train]

I believe that changing the track layout at Bourne end has already been discussed.

My question more relates to the possibility of using SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) at restricted stations like Marlow or others in the area due to no 2 car emus?

It is only Marlow and especially Bourne End platform 2 that are short, the Marlow platform is possibly already 3 car length.  Cookham, Furze Platt and Bourne End Plat 1 already handle 5 car trains.  Maidenhead plat 5B is limited to 3 cars but can handle longer if 5A is used,  5A is going to be part of the Crossrail turnback.

[stuving]

I believe that changing the track layout at Bourne end has already been discussed.

My question more relates to the possibility of using SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) at restricted stations like Marlow or others in the area due to no 2 car emus?

Apart from the Greenford Line halts and Bourne End, Marlow is the only one less then 4-car length. The usual approach seems to be to always lengthen unless there is something in the way or hardly any passengers, neither of which applies to Marlow.

In any case, it's the terminus, which must make SDO even less acceptable, and might rule it out altogether.

[eightf48544]

SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) doesn't help at Bourne End it's the physical length between the buffer stops and the points for Marlow which trail into the line is physically too short to get an over 60m long train in clear so the points can operate. I believe at Marlow the platform could be lengthened.

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

Western Route Study Draft

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

That link correct?, CfN? Its MMPA's response to the consultation, not to the Study quoted!

It is the link to the item posted originally by SandTEngineer - I merely copied it into a shorter format, as it is so long it spilled over about three screens width otherwise. 

[Stroud Valleys]

Would it not be easier to close the current site of Bourne End Station and relocate the station, create a new curve to avoid a reversal and build the new station either on this new curve or somewhere nearby?

[eightf48544]

Would it not be easier to close the current site of Bourne End Station and relocate the station, create a new curve to avoid a reversal and build the new station either on this new curve or somewhere nearby?

Probably not,  Around the junction area and along the Marlow line are some very expensive properties and it would make the station further from the town centre.