Great Western franchise to be broken up?

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

It doesn't free up much stock though, there isn't even one train's worth east of Southampton over the course of day, only a few hours taken for a couple of arrivals and departures from Brighton, the first of which only comes from Portsmouth.

South of Westbury, it's a unit until 11:39 and from 13:32 to 19:39.   There are at least 2 other services per hour south of Salisbury ... fly in the ointment is the awful connections between GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) (Cardiff) and Southern (Southampton to Brighton) services.   More anon ... and I'll move this to the looking forward thread.

I was assuming that (as described) it would still run as far as Southampton, like the other short workings that currently terminate there.   But there is certainly the additional question over the few short workings to Southampton given the main clock face service provided by the GW^▸ (Great Western) Portsmouth and SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) Romseys...

Connections can possibly be improved though, and eastbound passengers going as far as Barnham make a good connection with the SN Victoria train (Mon - Sat).   Westbound connections off the Brighton are pretty hopeless, but they do work with the SWR to Salisbury.   

It really comes down to what proportion of passengers are actually travelling over the extremities.   There are practical options existing for the middle of the 'overlap' between Southern and Western networks...

Paul

[Timmer]

fly in the ointment is the awful connections between GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) (Cardiff) and Southern (Southampton to Brighton) services.   

Precisely.

[Electric train]

I can also reveal they have plans to transfer the Greenford Branch to Chiltern Railways(heaven knows why its always been a Western railway route)

I can for pure rolling stock logistics, there will not be many GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s operating west of Slough so getting the Greenford Unit back to Reading will be a challenge, were as for Chiltern Wimberley is not far away

True, but then it can always run as a stopping service, or if not just run fast down the mainline. The other option of course is to look at a battery operated railcar, as in the consultation there was proposals for battery or hydrogen trains to run on certain routes.

The other possible option is for a West Ealing - to somewhere on the Chilterns service which could take some load off of Marylebone which would also give the Chilterns some connectivity to Crossrail

[paul7575]

The other possible option is for a West Ealing - to somewhere on the Chilterns service which could take some load off of Marylebone which would also give the Chilterns some connectivity to Crossrail

Another option (probably with some traction already as it is in published route studies) is additional "Chiltern" terminal platform(s) at Old Oak Common, with services operated from somewhere such as High Wycombe straight down the NNML corridor.   

Perhaps they should do both...

Paul

[grahame]

Another option (probably with some traction already as it is in published route studies) is additional "Chiltern" terminal platform(s) at Old Oak Common, with services operated from somewhere such as High Wycombe straight down the NNML corridor. 

Presumably with an increased service over that currently provided on that route 

[devonexpress]

Another option (probably with some traction already as it is in published route studies) is additional "Chiltern" terminal platform(s) at Old Oak Common, with services operated from somewhere such as High Wycombe straight down the NNML corridor. 

Presumably with an increased service over that currently provided on that route 

Isn't HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) taking over the NNML? I suppose it would make sense for Chiltern to take over the Greenford Branch, As for the Bristol to Brighton route, I believe its more to do with the irregular timetable, but then even if it free up 2 more units, that's 2 extra 3 car units GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) could do with. And the increased frequency between Bristol, Salisbury and Southampton might even help with passenger overcrowding.

[stuving]

Isn't HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) taking over the NNML?

In what sense? The original plan to built HS2 on the trackbed past Hanger Lane has been binned. This is in part due to the recent (and somewhat damascene) realisation that tunnelling is cheaper than building on the surface. Or, at least, it is in crowded places like Ealing when you've already wound up your TBM and set it going.

There will still be a number of access and ventilation shafts, and work sites for them, which will close the line. Or at least that's what some of the plans show. However, the plans also seem to show all the land acquisitions originally intended. It may merely identify the parcels, while the schedule no longer lists them as being acquired, but who knows?

[paul7575]

Isn't HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) taking over the NNML? I suppose it would make sense for Chiltern to take over the Greenford Branch, As for the Bristol to Brighton route, I believe its more to do with the irregular timetable, but then even if it free up 2 more units, that's 2 extra 3 car units GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) could do with. And the increased frequency between Bristol, Salisbury and Southampton might even help with passenger overcrowding.

To add to stuving's reply, the decision to tunnel under the Northolt corridor was announced in 2013, following a consultation on various changes during 2012.   Not that recent a decision, yet HS2 takeover of the NNML is still regularly mentioned...

The exact position of the vent shafts was still to be decided back then, but given the width of most of it I can't see that being a stopper.  NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are routinely making proposals to use the route.

Paul

[Electric train]

Isn't HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) taking over the NNML? I suppose it would make sense for Chiltern to take over the Greenford Branch, As for the Bristol to Brighton route, I believe its more to do with the irregular timetable, but then even if it free up 2 more units, that's 2 extra 3 car units GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) could do with. And the increased frequency between Bristol, Salisbury and Southampton might even help with passenger overcrowding.

To add to stuving's reply, the decision to tunnel under the Northolt corridor was announced in 2013, following a consultation on various changes during 2012.   Not that recent a decision, yet HS2 takeover of the NNML is still regularly mentioned...

The exact position of the vent shafts was still to be decided back then, but given the width of most of it I can't see that being a stopper.  NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are routinely making proposals to use the route.

Paul

these are not just a ventilation shaft, they are actually "intervention shafts" TSI's" were interrupted to me every 1km however I believe the current thinking is 500m.  Also it may be the case that NNML ownership is given to HS2 to allow for construction access they may also build a maintenance access line off of NNML to HS2 for engineering trains 

[stuving]

these are not just a ventilation shaft, they are actually "intervention shafts" TSI's" were interrupted to me every 1km however I believe the current thinking is 500m.  Also it may be the case that NNML ownership is given to HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) to allow for construction access they may also build a maintenance access line off of NNML to HS2 for engineering trains 

Since the letting of construction contracts has already started, it's hard to see the current plans changing. And in February 2017 (after the bill passed) it was confirmed that these intervention shafts would ignore the 1 km spacing and adopt "alternative technical solutions that provide an equivalent safety level, agreed with [the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)]". That allows the spacing to be up to 3 km, though they are putting in cross-passages at less than 300 m spacing too.

Only one of the headhouses (at Greenford) severs the NNML, between Greenford East and Greenford West Junctions (i.e. the north side of the triangle). Even then there's room for at least one line to get past, but as the site isn't that cramped the headhouse position was a pretty free choice anyway.

More significantly, the line is also blocked at its eastern end, by the new arrangement planned for Old Oak Common. There are turnback sidings that curve round that way so as to fit in, and while again there should be enough space (especially if the new NR^» (Network Rail - home page) substation was put on he site of the old one) there may be nowhere sensible to attach the line to in the new arrangement.

However, the formation does seem to stay intact from Ruislip to Greenford, which is all Chiltern would need. It is striking, however, that HS2 never mention it even when discussing transport infrastructure in the Northolt corridor and how HS2 will affect it!

PS: There's an autotransformer station at Greenford too - on the surface, unlike the one at Stepney Green - and its labelled an EFATS.

[Electric train]

these are not just a ventilation shaft, they are actually "intervention shafts" TSI's" were interrupted to me every 1km however I believe the current thinking is 500m.  Also it may be the case that NNML ownership is given to HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) to allow for construction access they may also build a maintenance access line off of NNML to HS2 for engineering trains 

Since the letting of construction contracts has already started, it's hard to see the current plans changing. And in February 2017 (after the bill passed) it was conformed that these intervention shafts would ignore the 1 km spacing and adopt "alternative technical solutions that provide an equivalent safety level, agreed with [the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)]". That allows the spacing to be up to 3 km, though they are putting in cross-passages at less than 300 m spacing too.

Only one of the headhouses (at Greenford) severs the NNML, between Greenford East and Greenford West Junctions (i.e. the north side of the triangle). Even then there's room for at least one line to get past, but as the site isn't that cramped the headhouse position was a pretty free choice anyway.

More significantly, the line is also blocked at its east end, by the new arrangement planned for Old Oak Common. There are turnback sidings that curve round that way so as to fit in, and while again there should be enough space (especially if the new NR^» (Network Rail - home page) substation was put on he site of the old one) there may be nowhere sensible to attach the line to in the new arrangement.

However, the formation does seem to stay intact from Ruislip to Greenford, which is all Chiltern would need. It is striking, however, that HS2 never mention it even when discussing transport infrastructure in the Northolt corridor and how HS2 will affect it!

PS: There's an autotransformer station at Greenford too - on the surface, unlike the one at Stepney Green - and its labelled an EFATS.

There are a number of options for the West Ealing / Chiltern route with interchanges with the Central Line.  When the HS2 station complex is developed at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) an additional Central Line station at OOC or some means to link North Acton to OOC HS2 station and the proposed North London Line station are all options I feel should be explored.

OOC has the potential to be a bigger rail hub than Stratford

[ellendune]

If OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) is to be so big then diverting Inner Chiltern Line services to Crossrail would look a very good idea. 

[stuving]

I was wondering what happened about the idea of Chiltern running to OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)). The answer seems to be, in part, in the West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study (final version published in August). This includes such an option for extra capacity not easily provided at Marylebone, and says:

Analysis undertaken has shown that the interchange time between services from the Chiltern Route and Crossrail are critical in terms of attractiveness for passengers. The analysis has shown that commuters travelling to the City and Canary Wharf will use the new route, as this will be quicker than using the Jubilee line via London Marylebone and Baker Street.   

Engineering development work has shown that it is feasible for Chilterns services to connect to new platforms at Old Oak Common without impeding the proposed Old Oak Common track layout. Work is under way to assure that the ongoing Old Oak Common station development does not preclude this option.

The business case has not yet been developed for this option as the benefit streams are still emerging.

As to Chiltern's view, this comes from a meeting reported by Steve Baker, MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Wycombe, with Managing Director of Chiltern Railways, Dave Penney:

• Question: In 2015, Chiltern Railways requested my support to preserve the High Wycombe Single Line between South Ruislip and the Great Western Mainline at Old Oak Common. I wrote to the Departmet of Transport highlighting the importance of High Wycombe being linked with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s))’s proposed Old Oak Common station. Can Chiltern Railways update me on the discussions about the future use of that line so High Wycombe can be connected to HS2?

Answer: Chiltern responded that “we appreciate your support and we continue to lobby for Chiltern to retain and develop access to Old Oak Common. We are working with the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), Network Rail, HS2 and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation to achieve this. This importance of the link from the Chiltern line to Old Oak Common is set out in Network Rail’s long-term planning document for the route (West Midlands and Chilterns Route Study) published in August 2017.

Note that NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s option (table 20) includes an upgrade and double tracking of the line.

To my mind the important thing is to preserve the space for such a double track along the route, whether or not a specific use is now planned. Telling HS2 and Crossrail planners that it is "abandoned", and can be built on for the most trivial of advantages, made no sense. Assembling such a long thin landholding through London suburbs is very very hard (and so costly), verging on the impossible. It sounds from those quotes as if the HS2 plans are being altered even at this late stage; it's only a lean-to to the headhouse at Greenford that was the problem.

Routing Crossrail via Greenford to High Wycombe (western corridor C) was rejected at an early stage, mainly because Chiltern Metropolitain, and Central line services didn't need that much help. Part of the argument was about sharing tracks with Chiltern, so would not apply to a short extension to a better railhead.  I guess there's not a big difference between meeting Chiltern at OOC and running  non-stop to Ruislip and meeting there - apart from fighting over land at OOC with the developers.

[johnneyw]

I always wondered if there was any merit in a Metrowest franchise rather than have it under the control of First/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway). Given that it does not actually exist as yet, it would not be a runner in the next round of franchises but a fragmentation of the franchise might allow for this in the future.

[stuving]

It sounds from those quotes as if the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) plans are being altered even at this late stage; it's only a lean-to to the headhouse at Greenford that was the problem.

I take that back, having checked the drawing. The headhouse at Greenford is, as I said, clear of the NNML tracks. The larger outline sticking out and overlapping the tracks is the shaft, and shown as underground. So it must be an expansion of the shaft into a cavern at tunnel level. Vivat the NNML!