On May 16, 2:32*pm, wrote:
On May 15, 4:05*pm, wrote:

Having had a browse through it, I was interested to see the Chiltern
services from Marylebone via both High Wycombe and Harrow-on-the-Hill
down for eventual AC electrification. I hope that the writers realise
that Harrow - Amersham is already DC electrified (I only see it shown
on one map), so dual voltage stock will be needed for these trains.

Not all that long back I suggested maybe the Bombardier Movias for the
Met.line might have been better off specced for dual voltage - if not
exactly fitted with pans and transformers for exactly such a combined
dual system electrifiaction. It is not as if modern VVVF EMU are
traction system dependant, it is not hard these days to plan this
stuff in.

As usual the less innovative within uk.railway could not see what on
earth for. I'd have though the advantages of a few [say] High Wycombe
[or somehere] to Aldgate at expense of [say] a few Watford or [say]
Uxbridge to Marylebone might be worth it. Nver mind the possibility of
some relief to Baker Street with maybe diversion to Marylebone; MB
does need relief, the route conflicts in MB throat to/from the bays
arer almost as bad as the Met/Circle line junction.

None of what I'm suggesting is outragious, its no more than a sort of
Thameslink style link up of two routes, it just don't cross the
Thames.

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

1506 wrote:

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern
and WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met
trains an hour.

Hint: One of the big operational constraints in Chiltern land is that
it's presently a mainly two track railway all the way from Marylebone to
Birmingham, though Evergreen 3 is designed to alleviate some of that
with strategic "through lines" at key points.

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of
the Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?

Cheers,

Barry

"Barry Salter" wrote in message
...
1506 wrote:

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern
and WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met trains
an hour.

Hint: One of the big operational constraints in Chiltern land is that it's
presently a mainly two track railway all the way from Marylebone to
Birmingham, though Evergreen 3 is designed to alleviate some of that with
strategic "through lines" at key points.

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of
the Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?

Cheers,

Barry

can someone enlighten me, what "spare" tunnels. AIUI, there were 2 tracks
with stations down to Baker St, and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) replaced the
Stations, leaving 2 through tracks. Did I lose some tracks somewhere along
the way?

David down under

On May 19, 7:58*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
"Barry Salter" wrote in message

...





1506 wrote:

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. *In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. *OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern
and WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met trains
an hour.

Hint: One of the big operational constraints in Chiltern land is that it's
presently a mainly two track railway all the way from Marylebone to
Birmingham, though Evergreen 3 is designed to alleviate some of that with
strategic "through lines" at key points.

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of
the Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?

Cheers,

Barry

can someone enlighten me, what "spare" tunnels. AIUI, there were 2 tracks
with stations down to Baker St, and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) replaced the
Stations, leaving 2 through tracks. Did I lose some tracks somewhere along
the way?

David down under

When the Great Central Railway was being constructed (completion
c1899) capacity for seven track was provided under Lords Cricket
ground. Two times two track tunnels and one three.

This was to enable the GC to be widened at a future date without
disturbed the hallowed turf of Lords. The tunnel currently in use is
the one to the East, i.e. next to the Metropolitan. The unused ones
are on to the west.

"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 19, 7:58 am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
"Barry Salter" wrote in message

...





1506 wrote:

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern
and WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met
trains
an hour.

Hint: One of the big operational constraints in Chiltern land is that
it's
presently a mainly two track railway all the way from Marylebone to
Birmingham, though Evergreen 3 is designed to alleviate some of that
with
strategic "through lines" at key points.

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of
the Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?

Cheers,

Barry

can someone enlighten me, what "spare" tunnels. AIUI, there were 2 tracks
with stations down to Baker St, and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) replaced
the
Stations, leaving 2 through tracks. Did I lose some tracks somewhere along
the way?

David down under

When the Great Central Railway was being constructed (completion
c1899) capacity for seven track was provided under Lords Cricket
ground. Two times two track tunnels and one three.

This was to enable the GC to be widened at a future date without
disturbed the hallowed turf of Lords. The tunnel currently in use is
the one to the East, i.e. next to the Metropolitan. The unused ones
are on to the west.



Thanks 1506

So I take it these extra 2 tunnels, total 5 tracks, connect to nowhere but
could be useful storage, or wartime propaganda command HQ ...

David

On May 19, 9:18*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 19, 7:58 am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:





"Barry Salter" wrote in message

...

1506 wrote:

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern
and WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met
trains
an hour.

Hint: One of the big operational constraints in Chiltern land is that
it's
presently a mainly two track railway all the way from Marylebone to
Birmingham, though Evergreen 3 is designed to alleviate some of that
with
strategic "through lines" at key points.

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of
the Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?

Cheers,

Barry

can someone enlighten me, what "spare" tunnels. AIUI, there were 2 tracks
with stations down to Baker St, and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) replaced
the
Stations, leaving 2 through tracks. Did I lose some tracks somewhere along
the way?

David down under

When the Great Central Railway was being constructed (completion
c1899) capacity for seven track was provided under Lords Cricket
ground. *Two times two track tunnels and one three.

This was to enable the GC to be widened at a future date without
disturbed the hallowed turf of Lords. *The tunnel currently in use is
the one to the East, i.e. next to the Metropolitan. *The unused ones
are on to the west.



Thanks 1506

So I take it these extra 2 tunnels, total 5 tracks, connect to nowhere but
could be useful storage, or wartime propaganda command HQ ...

I guess that is about right. The bridge over the LNWR/WCML at West
Hampstead Station looks as if it was built in such a way that doubling
its width at a future date would be easy. For most of the GC's route
enough land was purchased for the eventual addition of two more
tracks.

On May 19, 7:58*am, "DW downunder" noname wrote:
"Barry Salter" wrote in message

...





1506 wrote:

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. *In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. *OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern
and WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met trains
an hour.

Hint: One of the big operational constraints in Chiltern land is that it's
presently a mainly two track railway all the way from Marylebone to
Birmingham, though Evergreen 3 is designed to alleviate some of that with
strategic "through lines" at key points.

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of
the Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?

Cheers,

Barry

can someone enlighten me, what "spare" tunnels. AIUI, there were 2 tracks
with stations down to Baker St, and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) replaced the
Stations, leaving 2 through tracks. Did I lose some tracks somewhere along
the way?


When the Great Central Railway was being constructed (completion
c1899) capacity for seven track was provided under Lords Cricket
ground. Two times two track tunnels and one three.

This was to enable the GC to be widened at a future date without
disturbing the hallowed turf of Lords. The tunnel currently in use
is
the one to the East, i.e. next to the Metropolitan. The unused ones
are on to the west.

In message , DW
downunder writes

So I take it these extra 2 tunnels, total 5 tracks, connect to nowhere
but could be useful storage, or wartime propaganda command HQ ...

They were leased from Network Rail by a property company some years ago,
and the latest I heard is that the MCC (who lease the ground above)
intend to enter into partnership with the new owners to redevelop the
site for flats, which they hope will pay for the redevelopment of Lords.

--
Paul Terry

On Tue, 19 May 2009, Barry Salter wrote:

1506 wrote:

There might be some merit in linking the Met. and the Chiltern Network
north of the Marylebone throat where the Met surfaces to cross the
Regents Canal. In theory that would allow the Amersham fasts to avoid
al of those Met Line bottlenecks. OTOH it would be a flat crossing.

There's barely enough capacity at Marylebone with the existing Chiltern and
WSMR services, let alone trying to squeeze in an extra four Met trains an
hour.

If you gave Amersham to Chiltern, couldn't you also give them some of the
platforms at Baker Street?

It is a pity that those empty tunnels under Lord's Cricket Ground
cannot be put to some use considering the traffic load on the Met at
that point.

If memory serves, aren't the "spare" tunnels on the wrong side of the
Chiltern line to be any use to the Met?

Could that be addressed by using some for Chiltern, then giving the
thus-vacated Chiltern lines to the Met? This would obviously take a good
bit of space on either side for the slewing of the alignments.

tom

--
I know thats not really relevant but I've just typed the words and my
backspace key doesn't work. -- phorenzik