On Mar 6, 1:10*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:11:04 -0800 (PST), Jamie *Thompson



wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:53*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:48*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:18:28 -0800 (PST), E27002
wrote:

On Mar 4, 3:36 am, Jamie *Thompson wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:50 pm, Chafford wrote:

Following last month's announcement on Evergreen 3, Chiltern Chairman
Adrian Shooter is asking Modern Railways readers what Evergreen 4
should provide. Captain Deltic likes the idea of a 4 track 125mph
electrified railway but reckons that this will have to wait for
Evergreen 5 (and a potential franchise extension to 2026, according to
the article!)

Comments to Captain Deltic at:

How about Aylesbury to Banbury via Buckingham, restoring that
population centre to the rail network? Though I suspect Rugby would be
the better bet.

Aylesbury to Verney Junction would not be an easy re-opening. *The
line was not well built to begin with.

OTOH If you are talking about re-opening Aylesbury to Banbury as part
of a third route to Birmingham, I think that has real merits. *All of
Metroland would be given easy access to England's second city.

If Network Rail added a new curve towards Bletchley, Chlitern's trains
could reach Milton Keynes Central with all of the onward connections
that MKC has to offer.

There already is a curve at Claydon Junction pointing toward
Bletchley; the problem IIRC is the gaps in the track along the route..

Understood, indeed, I have photographed that very curve, along with
Calvert Station, albeit many years back.

The problem with the route by way of Claydon is that it only provides
a very indirect route to Milton Keynes. *There is no easy way of
connecting it to Banbury. *The route by way of Verney Junction, plus a
new curve, provides through routes to Banbury and Milton Keynes.

Having both gives the residents of Metroland living north of Harrow
great increased travel opportunities. *It also gives Chiltern an
alternative route to Birmingham.

In all fairness, Vernney Junction was, is, and probably always will be
a field, so building a *new* curve from the Oxford-Bedford line to the
route through Buckingham (running via Calvert) wouldn't exactly be
difficult. The line from Vernney Junction to Quainton road doesn't
appear to have anything but a few scattered dwellings anywhere near it
anyway. On a tangent...I do wonder why the Buckingham Railway Centre
never bothered trying to rebuild the line north so they'd have
somewhere to run their rolling stock.

Leaving aside the money, it would be necessary to reconstruct a
platform on the west side of the road bridge, there being no room for
new one on the east side or unless the NR track changes sides to the
Down platform to allow use of the present Up platform. That still
leaves the problem that NR own the land between the location of the
19th century Up platform (when the road bridge replaced a level
crossing the station buildings were relocated on the London side of
the road crossing) and the site of the junction leading to Verney
Junction where they would no doubt come up with umpteen requirements
due to the proximity to their own running line whether they sold,
leased or rented the land.

I would've imagined that running
between Buckingham and Quainton road would've been a good line length
to operate, with little operational railway concerns.

There would be several level crossings. :-(

Whilst I'm well aware that 80-odd years have passed since it was
closed, I was of the impression that one of the first thing to Met did
when they bought the line was to replace the level crossings with
bridges - something NR can't even manage on it's mainlines to this
day? Say what you want about the old Met Railway...but they knew how
to invest through engineering