"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, 4:03*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, 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, 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).

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
wrote:

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.

In the present timetable, there is not a single "all-stations" train
out of Marylebone on the High Wycombe line. There are no
"many-station" trains that go as far as Princes Risborough, most
terminating at High Wycombe with a few destined for the turn-back
siding at Gerrards Cross.
So it is true that no overtaking movements can take place between
Marylebone and P.R but I suspect there is rarely a call for such a
facility.
In the UP direction, overtaking can take place at P R, H W and West
Ruislip and does so at the latter every morning. I have seen that
taking place at HW one evening when a fast Up swept past a
late-running train in the Up platform by using the fast facing
crossover west of the station put in to allow most trains in either
direction to use the town-side platform a few years ago.

Guy Gorton

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i have
to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The
layout at Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and is
still that way today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the
platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing something?

Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore.

I don't get it then. This link would have allowed trains to do Finchley
Road - Edgware Road - Aldgate? While they could already do Finchley Road
- Baker Street - Aldgate? Would the second link somehow have increased
capacity and allowed both Metroland and Stanmore trains to run to Aldgate?
Or was the idea to run Metroland trains to the City via Edgware Road, and
use all the Baker Street platforms to terminate Stanmore trains?

tom

--
The MAtrix had evarything in it: guns, a juimping off teh walls, flying
guns, a bullet tiem, evil computar machenes, numbers that flew, flying
gun bullets in slowar motian, juimping into a gun, dead police men,
computar hackeing, Kevin Mitnick, oven trailers, a old womans kitchen,
stairs, mature women in clotheing, head spark plugs, mechaanical squids,
Japaneseses assasins, tiem traval, volcanos, a monstar, slow time at
fastar speed, magic, wizzards, some dirty place, Kung Few, fighting,
a lot of mess explodsians EVARYWHERE, and just about anything else yuo
can names!

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Adrian wrote:

At one point the Met. considered building a mainline size tube to
link their "Main Line" to Edgware Road Station.

To join up with the Circle heading west, you mean? Or as a
terminus? Neither of those sound like brilliant ideas to me, i
have
to say!

To join up with the Circle line heading East, actually. The
layout at Edgware Road was rebuilt with that link in mind and is
still that way today.

Was this before the link to Baker Street, or the link from the
platforms there to the Circle, went in, or am i missing something?

Before the Bakerloo extension to Stanmore.

I don't get it then. This link would have allowed trains to do
Finchley Road - Edgware Road - Aldgate? While they could already
do Finchley Road - Baker Street - Aldgate? Would the second link
somehow have increased capacity and allowed both Metroland and
Stanmore trains to run to Aldgate? Or was the idea to run Metroland
trains to the City via Edgware Road, and use all the Baker Street
platforms to terminate Stanmore trains?

The Bakerloo relieved the same stretch of line, the tunnels between Baker
St and Finchley Road.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Apr 12, 8:11 am, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
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).

If you're going to mention platforms, don't forget the up platform at
South Ruislip.

I can almost forgive the use of the formation as a foundation for the
new down platform at Denham, but it still seems shortsighted to block
the formation like that.