Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 3, 1:10*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:49*pm, bebop wrote:





TimB wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:19 am, Richard Brooks richardbro...@vickers-

[snip]

Also;
http://www.transitionoxford.org.uk/sites/default/files/TransportEDPfo...

No, not that plan.
That's Evergreen 3, to the north of Oxford.

Well, turn back a page or three and the original version of Chiltern
Railway's 'Evergreen 3' proposal would have put Leicester back on the
list of destinations at Marylebone, and with a long franchise ahead of
them they were serious about it.

The map they issued used the correct shade of magenta for the proposed
route too.

Given the state of East Midlands Trains Sunday services, and the
provision of platforms for domestic services at St Pancras the other six
days of the week, some people will be thinking 'Bring it on'.

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized. Could
Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? Perhaps there is a
bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load carried
by Chiltern.

Still, this is a great problem to have. I can recall two attempts to
close Marylebone.

Crossposting to uk.transport.london and misc.transport.urban-transit
for a wider more focused discussion.

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

"1506" wrote

Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized. Could
Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? Perhaps there is a
bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load carried
by Chiltern.

It would I suppose be possible to evict the car park or whatever it is from
the space formerly occupied by the Motorail loading bays and create some
platforms there. But the West London Line is pretty full, and it's not clear
how trains would get there from the Chiltern line - the direct route
parallel to the LUL Central Line between North Acton and Shepherds Bush has
long gone.

Peter

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:10*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras style?
You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by much. Or you
could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more St Pancras style.

You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to make,
though.

tom

--
Teach us how to die well

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On 4 June, 00:21, Tom Anderson wrote:
People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to make,
though.

You've obviously never ridden the world-famous South Hampstead 270
degree spiral. A marvel of British engineering.

U

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 4, 12:48*am, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 4 June, 00:21, Tom Anderson wrote:

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to make,
though.

You've obviously never ridden the world-famous South Hampstead 270
degree spiral. A marvel of British engineering.

U

Cripes! Hold tight, chaps...

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T wrote:

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
St Pancras style.

You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
make, though.

No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 3, 5:54*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T wrote:

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. *If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
St Pancras style.

You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. *It is also well utilized.

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
make, though.

No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.

There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route. However, your
Northwick Park to South Kenton curve, which is a great idea, needs
some clarification. Dropping the Aylesbury route onto the Watford DC
lines would be less than ideal. Better that it should join the AC
Semi-fast tracks utilizing a non-conflicting junction. That would
take some land, and need heavy civils. But one would have thought
that it is do-able.

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 3, 3:35*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"1506" wrote



Paddington is hardly an option. *It is also well utilized. *Could
Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? *Perhaps there is a
bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load carried
by Chiltern.

It would I suppose be possible to evict the car park or whatever it is from
the space formerly occupied by the Motorail loading bays and create some
platforms there. But the West London Line is pretty full, and it's not clear
how trains would get there from the Chiltern line - the direct route
parallel to the LUL Central Line between North Acton and Shepherds Bush has
long gone.

Peter

It is a pity that the North Acton and Shepherds Bush has gone. I
guess the Central Line could be droppep into a sub surface trench and
a new link built above it.

Although for commuter traffic Kensington Olympia is not an ideal
destination. I could see a link being useful if the GC GW joint line
becomes HS2 though!

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T wrote:

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
St Pancras style.

You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
make, though.

No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.

No, use them for an extension of the Brent Cross light rail.

tom

--
Women are monsters, men are clueless, everyone fights and no-one ever
wins. -- cleanskies

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 4, 7:16*pm, 1506 wrote:
It is a pity that the North Acton and Shepherds Bush has gone. *I
guess the Central Line could be droppep into a sub surface trench and
a new link built above it.

No chance - from North Acton the Central Line quickly rises to
embankment once it emerges from under the GWML and North Pole depot
and passes over a number of bridges and then, just after East Acton,
the WB line crosses over as right-hand running is in place from there
to just before Shepherd's Bush (a throwback to the old CLR Wood Lane
loop).

THC

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

1506 wrote:
On Jun 3, 3:35 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"1506" wrote



Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized. Could
Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? Perhaps there is a
bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load
carried by Chiltern.

It would I suppose be possible to evict the car park or whatever it
is from the space formerly occupied by the Motorail loading bays and
create some platforms there. But the West London Line is pretty
full, and it's not clear how trains would get there from the
Chiltern line - the direct route parallel to the LUL Central Line
between North Acton and Shepherds Bush has long gone.

It is a pity that the North Acton and Shepherds Bush has gone. I
guess the Central Line could be droppep into a sub surface trench and
a new link built above it.

Wouldn't building a flyover from the North Pole depot access to the Perivale
line be just a bit cheaper?

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 4, 5:56 pm, 1506 wrote:

There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route.

I rather like the prospect of eventually having two Euston-Milton
Keynes services, via Aylesbury and via Watford. But the public might
prefer a choice of London termini.
Tim

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 5, 5:44*am, TimB wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:56 pm, 1506 wrote:



There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route.

I rather like the prospect of eventually having two Euston-Milton
Keynes services, via Aylesbury and via Watford. But the public might
prefer a choice of London termini.
* Tim

There would plenty of interchanges with the Met. And, Baker St is
very close to Marylebone. :-)

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 5, 4:35 pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jun 5, 5:44 am, TimB wrote:

On Jun 4, 5:56 pm, 1506 wrote:

There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route.

I rather like the prospect of eventually having two Euston-Milton
Keynes services, via Aylesbury and via Watford. But the public might
prefer a choice of London termini.
Tim

There would plenty of interchanges with the Met. And, Baker St is
very close to Marylebone. :-)

Point taken, although the Euston-MKC services don't actually stop at
many of those interchange points.
Tim

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?

tom

--
non, scarecrow, forensics, rituals, bacteria, scientific instruments, ..

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?


No, but this might help. Depending on the required gradient on the tracks,
you could conceivably cross the canal on the near level, traditionally this
would have involved a swing bridge. However a 'drop lock' (or sump lock) has
been provided for the Forth and Clyde restoration to allow the canal to
effectively burrow under a road, the same could be done under a railway:

http://www.gentles.info/link/Drop_Lock/Drop_Lock.htm

Paul S

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

Tom Anderson wrote on 07 June 2009 18:23:07 ...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
And sever the Regents Canal?
Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?

There's one in Manchester, near Piccadilly station.
Photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/binaryape/92608490/
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?

No, but this might help. Depending on the required gradient on the
tracks, you could conceivably cross the canal on the near level,
traditionally this would have involved a swing bridge. However a 'drop
lock' (or sump lock) has been provided for the Forth and Clyde
restoration to allow the canal to effectively burrow under a road, the
same could be done under a railway:

http://www.gentles.info/link/Drop_Lock/Drop_Lock.htm

Ah yes, i'd forgotten about that. That's a fine bit of engineering!

Although now i come to look at it, i'm not sure the canal needs to be
interfered with at all. I make it 2200 feet from the buffer stops to the
canal; if we take 960 feet for platforms (enough to hold 12 cars of class
172 - not that you'd use diesels in a tunnel, but it's indicative), that
leaves 1240 feet, which at a gradient of 1:30 is enough to dive 40 feet.
That's not as deep as a normal tube line, but it's deep enough to fit in
under the existing platforms, although it might have to be built as
cut-and-cover.

If that gradient is too steep, you could shorten the platforms, make them
deeper, or push them further towards Marylebone Road under the station.

tom

--
In-jokes for out-casts