Chiltern to Paddington

[Recliner]

As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day, M-F,
to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route knowledge
for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to Paddington.

It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time, five
days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other than by
rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males with cameras).
And, yes, I was one of those this week, and here's the evidence:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303

But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more services
into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing steadily, with 2 tph
Oxford services being added soon. The two-track route into Marylebone
is congested, as are Marylebone's six platforms. Would it be possible
to run, say, 2 tph into Paddington? There's obviously many
constraints, including:

- the single track sections on the neglected former main line from
South Ruislip to Old Oak Common, which also sees occasional freight
trains

- the flat Old Oak Common West Junction to the GW relief lines

- capacity on the relief lines into Paddington

- Paddington platform availability.

But might there still be room for a limited number of Chiltern
services, maybe even at peak times? Once Crossrail starts, there will
be more room in Paddington itself, but what about on the approach
lines?

[Robin9]

;149717']As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day
M-F,
to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route knowledge
for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to Paddington.
It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time, five
days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other than by
rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males with cameras).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303
But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more services
into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing steadily, with 2 tph
Oxford services being added soon. The two-track route into Marylebone
is congested, as are Marylebone's six platforms. Would it be possible
to run, say, 2 tph into Paddington? There's obviously many
- the single track sections on the neglected former main line from
South Ruislip to Old Oak Common, which also sees occasional freight
trains
- the flat Old Oak Common West Junction to the GW relief lines
- capacity on the relief lines into Paddington
- Paddington platform availability.
But might there still be room for a limited number of Chiltern
services, maybe even at peak times? Once Crossrail starts, there will
be more room in Paddington itself, but what about on the approach
lines?

Good photos. Thank you.

Not being a major rail enthusiast, I didn't know about this service
You
describe it as "Chiltern to Paddington" but from where does it start
Surely
further afield than West Ruislip


--
Robin9

[Roland Perry]

Not being a major rail enthusiast, I didn't know about this service.
You
describe it as "Chiltern to Paddington" but from where does it start?
Surely
further afield than West Ruislip?

No.

<http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PAD/2015/08/05/0000-235
9?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=CH>

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Not being a major rail enthusiast, I didn't know about this service. You
describe it as "Chiltern to Paddington" but from where does it start?
Surely further afield than West Ruislip?

No.

<http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PAD/2015/08/05/0000-2359?stp
=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=CH>

Looks pretty parliamentary to me.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Not being a major rail enthusiast, I didn't know about this service. You
describe it as "Chiltern to Paddington" but from where does it start?
Surely further afield than West Ruislip?

No.

<http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PAD/2015/08/05/0000-2359?stp
=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=CH>
Looks pretty parliamentary to me.

It does, but runs five days a week, unlike most parlys. It's there to
maintain driver route knowledge, for whenever Chiltern has to divert to
Paddington if Marylebone can't be used.

The current version is Oyster-friendly, so it's used more than when it
started from outside the London zones. So, by running a shorter service,
Chiltern probably collects a bit more revenue from the Oyster pot.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Not being a major rail enthusiast, I didn't know about this service. You
describe it as "Chiltern to Paddington" but from where does it start?
Surely further afield than West Ruislip?

No.

<http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PAD/2015/08/05/0000-2359?stp
=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=CH>
Looks pretty parliamentary to me.

It does, but runs five days a week, unlike most parlys. It's there to
maintain driver route knowledge, for whenever Chiltern has to divert to
Paddington if Marylebone can't be used.
The current version is Oyster-friendly, so it's used more than when it
started from outside the London zones. So, by running a shorter service,
Chiltern probably collects a bit more revenue from the Oyster pot.

I can't help thinking that giving the Greenford Branch over to Chiltern,
extending all of the Greenford Trains to South or West Ruislip and half
of them to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough to replace the current
hourly service on that line, would achieve similar results in a better
way. It would need a new platform to be built at Greenford though, and
I'm not sure if the Greenford Branch still has chronic speed restrictions.

[Recliner]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Not being a major rail enthusiast, I didn't know about this service. You
describe it as "Chiltern to Paddington" but from where does it start?
Surely further afield than West Ruislip?

No.

<http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PAD/2015/08/05/0000-2359?stp
=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=CH>
Looks pretty parliamentary to me.

It does, but runs five days a week, unlike most parlys. It's there to
maintain driver route knowledge, for whenever Chiltern has to divert to
Paddington if Marylebone can't be used.
The current version is Oyster-friendly, so it's used more than when it
started from outside the London zones. So, by running a shorter service,
Chiltern probably collects a bit more revenue from the Oyster pot.

I can't help thinking that giving the Greenford Branch over to Chiltern,
extending all of the Greenford Trains to South or West Ruislip and half
of them to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough to replace the current hourly
service on that line, would achieve similar results in a better way. It
would need a new platform to be built at Greenford though, and I'm not
sure if the Greenford Branch still has chronic speed restrictions.

The Greenford branch is certainly very slow, but that may just be because
of the closely-spaced stops and relaxed timings. Of course, the service
will soon start at West Ealing rather than Paddington, as Crossrail will be
taking its Relief line paths into Paddington.

It would be a pity to lose the convenient cross-platform interchange at
Greenford, from which there are already frequent Central Line connections
through to West Ruislip. So it's hard to see who would benefit from
Chiltern running to West Ealing rather than Paddington.

But as the GWR moves away from DMU services in the area, it could still
make sense for Chiltern to take over the 2 tph West Ealing to Greenford
shuttle, perhaps also running additional 1 tph West Ealing to Aylesbury
services.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Recliner

Post by Basil Jet
I can't help thinking that giving the Greenford Branch over to Chiltern,
extending all of the Greenford Trains to South or West Ruislip and half
of them to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough to replace the current hourly
service on that line, would achieve similar results in a better way. It
would need a new platform to be built at Greenford though, and I'm not
sure if the Greenford Branch still has chronic speed restrictions.

The Greenford branch is certainly very slow, but that may just be because
of the closely-spaced stops and relaxed timings. Of course, the service
will soon start at West Ealing rather than Paddington, as Crossrail will be
taking its Relief line paths into Paddington.
It would be a pity to lose the convenient cross-platform interchange at
Greenford, from which there are already frequent Central Line connections
through to West Ruislip. So it's hard to see who would benefit from
Chiltern running to West Ealing rather than Paddington.
But as the GWR moves away from DMU services in the area, it could still
make sense for Chiltern to take over the 2 tph West Ealing to Greenford
shuttle, perhaps also running additional 1 tph West Ealing to Aylesbury
services.

Ah! I'd forgotten that the Greenford shuttles were earmarked to be cut
off at West Ealing. That stymies the proposal.

[Recliner]

Post by Robin9

;149717']As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day,
M-F,
to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route knowledge
for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to Paddington.
It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time, five
days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other than by
rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males with cameras).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303
But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more services
into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing steadily, with 2 tph
Oxford services being added soon. The two-track route into Marylebone
is congested, as are Marylebone's six platforms. Would it be possible
to run, say, 2 tph into Paddington? There's obviously many
- the single track sections on the neglected former main line from
South Ruislip to Old Oak Common, which also sees occasional freight
trains
- the flat Old Oak Common West Junction to the GW relief lines
- capacity on the relief lines into Paddington
- Paddington platform availability.
But might there still be room for a limited number of Chiltern
services, maybe even at peak times? Once Crossrail starts, there will
be more room in Paddington itself, but what about on the approach
lines?

Good photos. Thank you.
Not being a major rail enthusiast, I didn't know about this service.
You
describe it as "Chiltern to Paddington" but from where does it start?
Surely further afield than West Ruislip?

It arrives empty, presumably from Marylebone or Wembley, at the down
platform 3 at South Ruislip. I assume the Chiltern drivers all take turns
on this service after bringing in a peak train to Marylebone, so they have
up-to-date route knowledge.

After the return trip to Paddington, it terminates at West Ruislip, and
then sits empty there for 20 mins or so, as fast up trains pass by on the
centre road, before an ECS move back to Wembley or Marylebone. It's
immediately followed by a stopper to Marylebone, which I took.

[Barry Salter]

Post by Recliner
It arrives empty, presumably from Marylebone or Wembley, at the down
platform 3 at South Ruislip. I assume the Chiltern drivers all take turns
on this service after bringing in a peak train to Marylebone, so they have
up-to-date route knowledge.

Runs empty from Wembley LMD to South Ruislip as 5V35, forms 2V35 to
Paddington, 2M30 back to West Ruislip, then 5H43 back to Marylebone,
though that's only part of the unit's diagram for the day.

The trains in question are only worked by Aylesbury drivers, and I
believe they need a Guard as well.

Cheers,

Barry

[Recliner]

Post by Barry Salter

Post by Recliner
It arrives empty, presumably from Marylebone or Wembley, at the down
platform 3 at South Ruislip. I assume the Chiltern drivers all take turns
on this service after bringing in a peak train to Marylebone, so they have
up-to-date route knowledge.

Runs empty from Wembley LMD to South Ruislip as 5V35, forms 2V35 to
Paddington, 2M30 back to West Ruislip, then 5H43 back to Marylebone,
though that's only part of the unit's diagram for the day.
The trains in question are only worked by Aylesbury drivers, and I
believe they need a Guard as well.

Yes, there was a guard. All he did was to walk through the train just
before departure on each leg to check that we all knew where it was going.
Everyone did -- that's why we were on it.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Barry Salter

Post by Recliner
It arrives empty, presumably from Marylebone or Wembley, at the down
platform 3 at South Ruislip. I assume the Chiltern drivers all take turns
on this service after bringing in a peak train to Marylebone, so they have
up-to-date route knowledge.

Runs empty from Wembley LMD to South Ruislip as 5V35, forms 2V35 to
Paddington, 2M30 back to West Ruislip, then 5H43 back to Marylebone,
though that's only part of the unit's diagram for the day.
The trains in question are only worked by Aylesbury drivers, and I
believe they need a Guard as well.

What use is a diversionary route that only a fraction of the drivers
have the route knowledge for?

[Charles Ellson]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Barry Salter

Post by Recliner
It arrives empty, presumably from Marylebone or Wembley, at the down
platform 3 at South Ruislip. I assume the Chiltern drivers all take turns
on this service after bringing in a peak train to Marylebone, so they have
up-to-date route knowledge.

Runs empty from Wembley LMD to South Ruislip as 5V35, forms 2V35 to
Paddington, 2M30 back to West Ruislip, then 5H43 back to Marylebone,
though that's only part of the unit's diagram for the day.
The trains in question are only worked by Aylesbury drivers, and I
believe they need a Guard as well.

What use is a diversionary route that only a fraction of the drivers
have the route knowledge for?

More use than one that nobody has knowledge for.
How big in numerical figures is the "fraction" ? Are there also e.g.
freight drivers from somewhere else who could act as pilots if
necessary ?

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Barry Salter

Post by Recliner
It arrives empty, presumably from Marylebone or Wembley, at the down
platform 3 at South Ruislip. I assume the Chiltern drivers all take turns
on this service after bringing in a peak train to Marylebone, so they have
up-to-date route knowledge.

Runs empty from Wembley LMD to South Ruislip as 5V35, forms 2V35 to
Paddington, 2M30 back to West Ruislip, then 5H43 back to Marylebone,
though that's only part of the unit's diagram for the day.
The trains in question are only worked by Aylesbury drivers, and I
believe they need a Guard as well.

What use is a diversionary route that only a fraction of the drivers have
the route knowledge for?

When you schedule the diversions, you roster drivers who know the route...

fGW examples include only Exeter drivers sign via Honiton, only Swansea
sign via Barry, Swansea *don't* sign via Newbury, etc.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Barry Salter]

Post by Basil Jet
What use is a diversionary route that only a fraction of the drivers
have the route knowledge for?

Bearing in mind that, to keep the route on their card, a driver needs to
drive over it at *least* every six months, and Chiltern run over it
approximately 260 days a year, that gives a theoretical maximum of 130
drivers who can sign it...assuming you have a different driver every day.

Chiltern has approximately 300 drivers, so short of running two or three
trains a day to/from Paddington (which there isn't the stock for, let
alone paths), it's impossible for the entire complement to sign the route.

With the route being limited to two trains per hour each way due to the
single line, it's just as easy to change drivers at West Ruislip and
implement stepping back.

Cheers,

Barry

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:01:12 +0100, Barry Salter

Post by Barry Salter

Post by Basil Jet
What use is a diversionary route that only a fraction of the drivers
have the route knowledge for?

Bearing in mind that, to keep the route on their card, a driver needs to
drive over it at *least* every six months,

Drive over it or travel in the cab ?

Post by Barry Salter
and Chiltern run over it
approximately 260 days a year, that gives a theoretical maximum of 130
drivers who can sign it...assuming you have a different driver every day.
Chiltern has approximately 300 drivers, so short of running two or three
trains a day to/from Paddington (which there isn't the stock for, let
alone paths), it's impossible for the entire complement to sign the route.
With the route being limited to two trains per hour each way due to the
single line, it's just as easy to change drivers at West Ruislip and
implement stepping back.
Cheers,
Barry

[Barry Salter]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:01:12 +0100, Barry Salter

Post by Barry Salter

Post by Basil Jet
What use is a diversionary route that only a fraction of the drivers
have the route knowledge for?

Bearing in mind that, to keep the route on their card, a driver needs to
drive over it at *least* every six months,

Drive over it or travel in the cab ?

The wording in the Rule Book is: "When working a train, you must have
the necessary knowledge for the entire route over which you are to work,
or be accompanied by a competent conductor driver."

The precise details are left to individual operators, but both practical
handling and theory are assessed.

Cheers,

Barry

[r***@ntlworld.com]

Post by Barry Salter

Post by Recliner
It arrives empty, presumably from Marylebone or Wembley, at the down
platform 3 at South Ruislip. I assume the Chiltern drivers all take turns
on this service after bringing in a peak train to Marylebone, so they have
up-to-date route knowledge.

Runs empty from Wembley LMD to South Ruislip as 5V35, forms 2V35 to
Paddington, 2M30 back to West Ruislip, then 5H43 back to Marylebone,
though that's only part of the unit's diagram for the day.
The trains in question are only worked by Aylesbury drivers, and I
believe they need a Guard as well.
Cheers,
Barry
--
Barry Salter, usenet (at) southie (dot) me (dot) uk
Disclaimer: The above do not necessarily represent the views of my
employer.

Barry

The May 2017 issue of Modern Railways (Page 58) says that
Chiltern's return service from Paddington in future "will
instead run non-stop to High Wycombe."

I was at Paddington today and I noticed the destination was
High Wycombe. I asked the staff member on guard duty if the
train still stopped at West Ruislip. The reply was no, but the
inbound journey from South Ruislip is unchanged.
Wycombe non-stop. My Freedom Pass is not valid beyond West Ruislip!N

[Recliner]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 04:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Northolt Park Gates

It is probably not worth starting a service which will be disrupted by the building of HS2.

Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.

But once Crossrail and the OOC station are built, I wonder if a
possible route to Paddington with available capacity will remain?

[s***@your.buddy]

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 13:55:25 +0100

Post by Recliner
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 04:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Northolt Park Gates

It is probably not worth starting a service which will be disrupted by the

building of HS2.
Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.

If you mean that line the runs parallel to the Central line, why on earth
wouldn't they re-use that alignment instead of building a hugely expensive
tunnel?

--
Spud

[Chris]

Post by Recliner
Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.
But once Crossrail and the OOC station are built, I wonder if a
possible route to Paddington with available capacity will remain?

Think laterally - what'll be at OOC station? Yup, Crossrail & a connection to LHR. Won't that be enough to attract Chiltern?. Quite probably, with no requirement for Paddington.

Also, someone up-thread suggested Risborough/Aylesbury - why not extend that northwards & eastwards when the new EastWest comes online & run to Milton Keynes or Bedford? That's my thinking.

[Recliner]

Post by Chris

Post by Recliner
Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.
But once Crossrail and the OOC station are built, I wonder if a
possible route to Paddington with available capacity will remain?

Think laterally - what'll be at OOC station? Yup, Crossrail & a
connection to LHR. Won't that be enough to attract Chiltern?. Quite
probably, with no requirement for Paddington.

Yes, I did suggest upthread that OOC itself might be a useful Chiltern
destination, for both Crossrail and HS2, as well as probably the
Overground.

Post by Chris
Also, someone up-thread suggested Risborough/Aylesbury - why not extend
that northwards & eastwards when the new EastWest comes online & run to
Milton Keynes or Bedford? That's my thinking.

There's only a single track connection from the joint line to Aylesbury and
the east-west line central section. In any case, there's a good chance that
the Tring stoppers will be moved from Euston to Crossrail, which would be a
very much better link to MK.

[e27002 aurora]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Chris

Post by Chris

Post by Recliner
Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.
But once Crossrail and the OOC station are built, I wonder if a
possible route to Paddington with available capacity will remain?

Think laterally - what'll be at OOC station? Yup, Crossrail & a connection to LHR. Won't that be enough to attract Chiltern?. Quite probably, with no requirement for Paddington.
Also, someone up-thread suggested Risborough/Aylesbury - why not extend that northwards & eastwards when the new EastWest comes online & run to Milton Keynes or Bedford? That's my thinking.

The stretch of track between Old Oak Common and Northolt Junction is a
beautifully engineered RoW. It was completed in 1906 and once saw
Castle Hauled express trains to Birmingham. The line is almost
straight with an almost imperceptible curve past Hanger Lane.

In 1948 it was joined by the LPTB Central Line. Planned pre WWII this
was part of an anti-recession, job creation exercise.

The issue with this section is that there in insufficient demand from
South Ruislip. Et al, for trains to Marylebone, Paddington (or OOC)
and the TfL Central Line service.

The current arrangements thru the Ruislip Stations, along with the
Greenford to West Ealing branch are messy to say the least. But there
is no quick fix.

At first glance a Crossrail branch to say, Gerrards Cross, seems
attractive. But, Crossrail and the Central Line to the West End and
City is overkill. Could Crossrail replace the Central Line? Maybe,
but it would only make sense if Crossrail also took over the Central
Line branch to Ealing Broadway. That would mean cutting the Central
Line back to White City. This in turn would mean the loss of access
to Ruislip Depot. So, the Depot facilities at the eastern end of the
Central Line would need beefing up.

Can this section justify frequent 10 car trains? And what of the
Greenford to west Ealing section, it would become an isolated diesel
branch between two Crossrail routes. Perhaps the Central Line is
better left as it is. What is the demand for trains between West
Ealing and Greenford anyway? Would it make a sensible Central Line
branch?

But, then, the Greenford branch also sees use for mainline diversions.
I doubt Network Rail want tube trains in the way of those!

The route from Ruislip into Paddington is due to be severed at OOC if
the HS2 plans go ahead. And in truth the Central Line serves this
stretch adequately.

Chiltern Railways are developing their services thru the old GCGW
section very well. However, Interchange between Chiltern Railways and
the Central Line is rather inconvenient. The nationalized railway
pulled one of their platform widening stunts at West Ruislip. The
platform was extended over the platform loop but the canopy was not.
Moreover the Central Line was left with its isolated island platform.
Passengers alighting from Central Line trains at West Ruislip wanting
to continue to Denham and beyond, have to climb and descend stairs
despite the fact their train is sitting right next to the down
mainline platform.

Would it be so hard to rebuild South Ruislip and West Ruislip as
normal four platform stations that allowed interchange across the
middle island to the down route to Denham et al? That would at least
tidy up the stations and give some focus to passenger convenience.

What of the Greenford branch? A possible use for tram-trains perhaps?
But, where would they go from their termini? Maybe this will become
another isolated section of the Overground.

[Recliner]

Post by e27002 aurora
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Chris

Post by Chris

Post by Recliner
Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.
But once Crossrail and the OOC station are built, I wonder if a
possible route to Paddington with available capacity will remain?

Think laterally - what'll be at OOC station? Yup, Crossrail & a
connection to LHR. Won't that be enough to attract Chiltern?. Quite
probably, with no requirement for Paddington.
Also, someone up-thread suggested Risborough/Aylesbury - why not extend
that northwards & eastwards when the new EastWest comes online & run to
Milton Keynes or Bedford? That's my thinking.

The stretch of track between Old Oak Common and Northolt Junction is a
beautifully engineered RoW. It was completed in 1906 and once saw
Castle Hauled express trains to Birmingham. The line is almost
straight with an almost imperceptible curve past Hanger Lane.
In 1948 it was joined by the LPTB Central Line. Planned pre WWII this
was part of an anti-recession, job creation exercise.
The issue with this section is that there in insufficient demand from
South Ruislip. Et al, for trains to Marylebone, Paddington (or OOC)
and the TfL Central Line service.
The current arrangements thru the Ruislip Stations, along with the
Greenford to West Ealing branch are messy to say the least. But there
is no quick fix.
At first glance a Crossrail branch to say, Gerrards Cross, seems
attractive. But, Crossrail and the Central Line to the West End and
City is overkill. Could Crossrail replace the Central Line? Maybe,
but it would only make sense if Crossrail also took over the Central
Line branch to Ealing Broadway. That would mean cutting the Central
Line back to White City. This in turn would mean the loss of access
to Ruislip Depot. So, the Depot facilities at the eastern end of the
Central Line would need beefing up.
Can this section justify frequent 10 car trains? And what of the
Greenford to west Ealing section, it would become an isolated diesel
branch between two Crossrail routes. Perhaps the Central Line is
better left as it is. What is the demand for trains between West
Ealing and Greenford anyway? Would it make a sensible Central Line
branch?
But, then, the Greenford branch also sees use for mainline diversions.
I doubt Network Rail want tube trains in the way of those!
The route from Ruislip into Paddington is due to be severed at OOC if
the HS2 plans go ahead.

I think this is no longer the case, as I stated earlier in this thread. You
must be thinking of an earlier iteration of the HS2 plans.

Post by e27002 aurora
And in truth the Central Line serves this
stretch adequately.

The Crossrail trains would serve, at most, one of the Ruislip stations.

Post by e27002 aurora
Chiltern Railways are developing their services thru the old GCGW
section very well. However, Interchange between Chiltern Railways and
the Central Line is rather inconvenient. The nationalized railway
pulled one of their platform widening stunts at West Ruislip. The
platform was extended over the platform loop but the canopy was not.
Moreover the Central Line was left with its isolated island platform.
Passengers alighting from Central Line trains at West Ruislip wanting
to continue to Denham and beyond, have to climb and descend stairs
despite the fact their train is sitting right next to the down
mainline platform.

But only 1 tph?

Post by e27002 aurora
Would it be so hard to rebuild South Ruislip and West Ruislip as
normal four platform stations that allowed interchange across the
middle island to the down route to Denham et al? That would at least
tidy up the stations and give some focus to passenger convenience.

Hardly justified for the limited numbers interchangeing there.

Post by e27002 aurora
What of the Greenford branch? A possible use for tram-trains perhaps?
But, where would they go from their termini? Maybe this will become
another isolated section of the Overground.

Yes, it no longer fits in the GWR network, but would be hard to include in
the Central or Chiltern lines. Maybe run it as the planned shuttle, but
under Chiltern?

[BevanPrice]

Post by e27002 aurora
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Chris

Post by Recliner
Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.
But once Crossrail and the OOC station are built, I wonder if a
possible route to Paddington with available capacity will remain?

And what of the

Post by e27002 aurora
Greenford to west Ealing section, it would become an isolated diesel
branch between two Crossrail routes. Perhaps the Central Line is
better left as it is. What is the demand for trains between West
Ealing and Greenford anyway? Would it make a sensible Central Line
branch?
But, then, the Greenford branch also sees use for mainline diversions.
I doubt Network Rail want tube trains in the way of those!
The route from Ruislip into Paddington is due to be severed at OOC if
the HS2 plans go ahead. And in truth the Central Line serves this
stretch adequately.
What of the Greenford branch? A possible use for tram-trains perhaps?
But, where would they go from their termini? Maybe this will become
another isolated section of the Overground.

Assuming paths could be found, might it be viable to have a (hourly)
Chiltern service from, say, Princes Risborough to Ealing Broadway via
the Greenford line. One purpose would be for connections to Heathrow.

[Recliner]

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Chris

Post by Recliner
Yes, I suppose so, though at least HS2 will now be in tunnel in the
Park Royal area, rather than taking over that old GWR Oxford line
alignment to Northolt.
But once Crossrail and the OOC station are built, I wonder if a
possible route to Paddington with available capacity will remain?

And what of the

Post by e27002 aurora
Greenford to west Ealing section, it would become an isolated diesel
branch between two Crossrail routes. Perhaps the Central Line is
better left as it is. What is the demand for trains between West
Ealing and Greenford anyway? Would it make a sensible Central Line
branch?
But, then, the Greenford branch also sees use for mainline diversions.
I doubt Network Rail want tube trains in the way of those!
The route from Ruislip into Paddington is due to be severed at OOC if
the HS2 plans go ahead. And in truth the Central Line serves this
stretch adequately.
What of the Greenford branch? A possible use for tram-trains perhaps?
But, where would they go from their termini? Maybe this will become
another isolated section of the Overground.

Assuming paths could be found, might it be viable to have a (hourly)
Chiltern service from, say, Princes Risborough to Ealing Broadway via the
Greenford line. One purpose would be for connections to Heathrow.

Probably easier to terminate in the new bay platform at West Ealing -- I
don't think it's viable to reverse at Ealing Broadway.

[Roger Lynn]

Post by Recliner
As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day, M-F,
to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route knowledge
for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to Paddington.
It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time, five
days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other than by
rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males with cameras).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303
But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more services
into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing steadily, with 2 tph
Oxford services being added soon. The two-track route into Marylebone
is congested, as are Marylebone's six platforms. Would it be possible
to run, say, 2 tph into Paddington? There's obviously many

I had thought the plan was to divert a couple of the existing services to
Oxford. The xx48 from Marylebone would be an obvious choice: it terminates
at Bicester, rather than the more natural Banbury, and doesn't connect with
anything. However the matching xx18 service which would be the other one to
send to Oxford does have a connection at Bicester North and is also
sometimes extended to Banbury or Stratford (even though it would be better
to extend the xx48).

Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would be
particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could go to one
station only to find that the next train left from the other.

Roger

[Charles Ellson]

<snip>

Post by Roger Lynn
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would be
particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could go to one
station only to find that the next train left from the other.

They've got things called timetables (printed or electronic form) to
cure that. People travelling from various SR stations will be fairly
used to trains leaving by more than one route.

[NY]

Post by Charles Ellson
<snip>

Post by Roger Lynn
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would be
particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could go to one
station only to find that the next train left from the other.

They've got things called timetables (printed or electronic form) to
cure that. People travelling from various SR stations will be fairly
used to trains leaving by more than one route.

Timetables are fine but if you want to catch the next service to HW and are
travelling from (for example) Trafalgar Square it is difficult to judge how
long it will take you by each route on the Underground and therefore which
mainline station you should had for. Suppose you aim for the next train out
of Paddington but are slightly delayed and miss the train. Now you've got to
get from Paddington to Marylebone before *that* train departs, when if you'd
known you were going to be delayed you'd have gone directly to Marylebone
and been certain to catch that train. At least Paddington and Marylebone are
close enough that it doesn't take long on the Bakerloo line between one and
the other, so you can probably do it before the next train leaves *if they
are equally spaced*.

[Theo Markettos]

Post by NY
Timetables are fine but if you want to catch the next service to HW and are
travelling from (for example) Trafalgar Square it is difficult to judge how
long it will take you by each route on the Underground and therefore which
mainline station you should had for.

As already discussed, this happens for KX/Liverpool St to Cambridge. The
journey time difference is such that it isn't real competition: if you're in
about a 15 min tube radius of Liverpool St or further east then that route
can swing it, otherwise it's almost always faster to go to KX, except in
case of disruption. The arithmetic varies a little bit during the day (in
the peaks KX/LST are about evens, off-peak KX wins, late evening both are
slower but KX still wins) but not enough to sway it. It can also vary if
you want to do Tottenham Hale (all LST trains) or Finsbury Park (KX
semi-fasts) rather than the terminus, which can work out depending on your
start point.

The frequency, spacing and journey time to get between the two is such that
if you miss a train, it's still quickest to stay put and wait for the next
one.

Theo

[Roger Lynn]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roger Lynn
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would be
particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could go to one
station only to find that the next train left from the other.

They've got things called timetables (printed or electronic form) to
cure that.

That's fine if they're actually kept to, but previously it wasn't necessary
to study a timetable, you could just turn up and be sure of catching the
next train, whenever it happened to be.

Post by Charles Ellson
People travelling from various SR stations will be fairly
used to trains leaving by more than one route.

That doesn't stop it being a new and unnecessary inconvenience on this route.

Roger

[BevanPrice]

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by Recliner
As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day,
M-F, to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route
knowledge for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to
Paddington.
It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time,
five days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other
than by rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males
with cameras). And, yes, I was one of those this week, and here's
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303
But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more
services into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing
steadily, with 2 tph Oxford services being added soon. The
two-track route into Marylebone is congested, as are Marylebone's
six platforms. Would it be possible to run, say, 2 tph into

I had thought the plan was to divert a couple of the existing
services to Oxford. The xx48 from Marylebone would be an obvious
choice: it terminates at Bicester, rather than the more natural
Banbury, and doesn't connect with anything. However the matching xx18
service which would be the other one to send to Oxford does have a
connection at Bicester North and is also sometimes extended to
Banbury or Stratford (even though it would be better to extend the
xx48).
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would
be particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could
go to one station only to find that the next train left from the
other.
Roger

Not a problem in Manchester, where trains to Liverpool depart from
Victoria, or from (Piccadilly + Oxford Road)

[Recliner]

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by Recliner
As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day,
M-F, to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route
knowledge for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to
Paddington.
It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time,
five days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other
than by rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males
with cameras). And, yes, I was one of those this week, and here's
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303
But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more
services into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing
steadily, with 2 tph Oxford services being added soon. The
two-track route into Marylebone is congested, as are Marylebone's
six platforms. Would it be possible to run, say, 2 tph into

I had thought the plan was to divert a couple of the existing
services to Oxford. The xx48 from Marylebone would be an obvious
choice: it terminates at Bicester, rather than the more natural
Banbury, and doesn't connect with anything. However the matching xx18
service which would be the other one to send to Oxford does have a
connection at Bicester North and is also sometimes extended to
Banbury or Stratford (even though it would be better to extend the
xx48).
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would
be particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could
go to one station only to find that the next train left from the
other.
Roger

Not a problem in Manchester, where trains to Liverpool depart from
Victoria, or from (Piccadilly + Oxford Road)

It's pretty standard in south London, as many stations are served by trains
from more than one of Waterloo, Victoria, Blackfriars and London Bridge.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 23:14:07 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by Recliner
As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day,
M-F, to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route
knowledge for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to
Paddington.
It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time,
five days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other
than by rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males
with cameras). And, yes, I was one of those this week, and here's
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303
But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more
services into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing
steadily, with 2 tph Oxford services being added soon. The
two-track route into Marylebone is congested, as are Marylebone's
six platforms. Would it be possible to run, say, 2 tph into

I had thought the plan was to divert a couple of the existing
services to Oxford. The xx48 from Marylebone would be an obvious
choice: it terminates at Bicester, rather than the more natural
Banbury, and doesn't connect with anything. However the matching xx18
service which would be the other one to send to Oxford does have a
connection at Bicester North and is also sometimes extended to
Banbury or Stratford (even though it would be better to extend the
xx48).
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would
be particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could
go to one station only to find that the next train left from the
other.
Roger

Not a problem in Manchester, where trains to Liverpool depart from
Victoria, or from (Piccadilly + Oxford Road)

It's pretty standard in south London, as many stations are served by trains
from more than one of Waterloo, Victoria, Blackfriars and London Bridge.

Some of the stations are served in both directions as well (e.g.
Lewisham, Clapham Junction) by trains on loop routes although the
displayed destination tends to be changed during the journey thus
preventing unwanted journeys by the pretty route. North of the Thames,
trains leave Highbury and Islington (also Canonbury) for Clapham
Junction in opposite directions; some are at identical departure times
(so you can choose the wrong platform rather than the wrong station).

[Basil Jet]

Post by Charles Ellson
North of the Thames,
trains leave Highbury and Islington (also Canonbury) for Clapham
Junction in opposite directions; some are at identical departure times
(so you can choose the wrong platform rather than the wrong station).

I was going to say it doesn't matter much, because journey times are
similar, but the Shoreditch route cuts through zone 1 and the Willesden
route stays in zone 2. They could fix the problem by usually terminating
the via Peckham trains at Dalston Junction... they appear to run ever
single one to or from Highbury, giving Croydon and New Cross the Dalston
terminators.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Charles Ellson
North of the Thames,
trains leave Highbury and Islington (also Canonbury) for Clapham
Junction in opposite directions; some are at identical departure times
(so you can choose the wrong platform rather than the wrong station).

But most are 2 minutes apart. In any case with a turn-up-and-go service
like that you won't normally be aiming for a particularly timed train.

Also a rather big clue that the clockwise trains have a set of buffers
just to the west of the platform (which means the platforms either
service uses is completely predictable - in theory 7 for anticlockwaise
and either 1 or 2 for clockwise, although looking at today's running
they are always platform 2).

And that the clockwise trains set off having berthed there about five
minutes, whereas the anticlockwise ones arrive from the previous
station, running through.

And finally, only the anticlockwise ones use the OHL.

Post by Basil Jet
I was going to say it doesn't matter much, because journey times are
similar, but the Shoreditch route cuts through zone 1 and the Willesden
route stays in zone 2.

I was there yesterday, and the way they describe the trains doesn't lead
to ambiguity - in other words they emphasive the "via's".

Post by Basil Jet
They could fix the problem by usually terminating the via Peckham
trains

iirc they call them "via Canada Water" (And Willesden Junction the other
way)

Post by Basil Jet
at Dalston Junction... they appear to run ever single one to or from
Highbury, giving Croydon and New Cross the Dalston terminators.

And the Highbury terminators alternate between Clapham Junction and
Crystal Palace. That leaves CJ with only one train via Canada Water
every 15 minutes.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Roland Perry
Also a rather big clue that the clockwise trains have a set of buffers
just to the west of the platform

You might think it's a big clue; my experience of the Great British
Travelling Public begs to differ ;)


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Recliner]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry
Also a rather big clue that the clockwise trains have a set of buffers
just to the west of the platform

You might think it's a big clue; my experience of the Great British
Travelling Public begs to differ ;)

I agree. I'm amazed how often I've got on at a terminus and have people
(usually women) asking in what direction the train would move.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Recliner

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry
Also a rather big clue that the clockwise trains have a set of buffers
just to the west of the platform

You might think it's a big clue; my experience of the Great British
Travelling Public begs to differ ;)

I agree. I'm amazed how often I've got on at a terminus and have people
(usually women) asking in what direction the train would move.

The confusion may be because there is in fact no buffer stop on the main DC
platform because the track continues past the footbridge on the stock
transfer link that has yet to be used. even though there are no buffers the
track is obviously disused and some of it lacks electrification.

[Recliner]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Recliner

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roland Perry
Also a rather big clue that the clockwise trains have a set of buffers
just to the west of the platform

You might think it's a big clue; my experience of the Great British
Travelling Public begs to differ ;)

I agree. I'm amazed how often I've got on at a terminus and have people
(usually women) asking in what direction the train would move.

The confusion may be because there is in fact no buffer stop on the main DC
platform because the track continues past the footbridge on the stock
transfer link that has yet to be used. even though there are no buffers the
track is obviously disused and some of it lacks electrification.

I was talking in general, even when people have walked past big red
buffers at a terminus, a surprising number are then confused about
which way it'll depart.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner
I was talking in general, even when people have walked past big red
buffers at a terminus, a surprising number are then confused about
which way it'll depart.

And surprisingly often, such as at Kings Cross platform 9 this morning,
the driver apparently doesn't even realise the big red buffers mean
"stop before colliding with me".

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
I was talking in general, even when people have walked past big red
buffers at a terminus, a surprising number are then confused about
which way it'll depart.

And surprisingly often, such as at Kings Cross platform 9 this morning,
the driver apparently doesn't even realise the big red buffers mean
"stop before colliding with me".

That's assuming there wasn't a technical failure.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<1667283412.524521470.207427.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 20:33:06 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
I was talking in general, even when people have walked past big red
buffers at a terminus, a surprising number are then confused about
which way it'll depart.

And surprisingly often, such as at Kings Cross platform 9 this morning,
the driver apparently doesn't even realise the big red buffers mean
"stop before colliding with me".

That's assuming there wasn't a technical failure.

Failure of the emergency braking system would be very serious indeed.
The whole fleet would surely be out of service for inspection by now?

[s***@googlemail.com]

Somewhere on Youtube, I think it was in one of the 'Secrets of the Overground' videos, it was claimed that because they couldn't tell which way round you had gone the cheaper fare was charged, excluding zone 1, and that this was an exception to the normal rule that Shoreditch High Street was in zone 1. Does anybody know if this is correct?

[Paul Corfield]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Charles Ellson
North of the Thames,
trains leave Highbury and Islington (also Canonbury) for Clapham
Junction in opposite directions; some are at identical departure times
(so you can choose the wrong platform rather than the wrong station).

I was going to say it doesn't matter much, because journey times are
similar, but the Shoreditch route cuts through zone 1 and the Willesden
route stays in zone 2. They could fix the problem by usually terminating
the via Peckham trains at Dalston Junction... they appear to run ever
single one to or from Highbury, giving Croydon and New Cross the Dalston
terminators.

If you are going Highbury/Canonbury to Clapham Junction then it
doesn't matter fare wise which way you go. Trains are direct and there
is no opportunity to touch on a route validator so you only pay a Z2
fare to go round either way. Even if you had a Z23 Travelcard on
Oyster you can't be fined because the system is designed to deduct an
extension fare if you travel to a destination priced via Z1 if you
travel via Shoreditch HS. Clapham Junction using Overground is NOT
priced via Zone 1 from those two origin stations. If you travel
Highbury to Peckham Rye on the overground direct with a Z23 Travelcard
you'll be charged a Z1 extension fare on entry *unless* you go through
the rigmarole of travelling via Stratford and touching the pink
validator there.

There are all sorts of exceptions lurking in the depths of the fare
system where TfL price certain journeys very cheaply (not via Zone 1)
and they live with the fact that you may travel via Zone 1 but not pay
for it.

The exception to this is paper tickets which state exactly what zones
you've paid for and have no auto extension facility. You must have
bought an extension fare beforehand and you'd be liable to a penalty
fare travelling via Shoreditch HS on a Z23 Travelcard if you were
unlucky to be checked on the train while travelling on that section.
Of course the ticket will show, from reading the stripe, where you
entered and an inspection could reasonably question you as to what
route you've taken.

[r***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 23:14:07 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Roger Lynn
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would
be particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could
go to one station only to find that the next train left from the
other.

Not a problem in Manchester, where trains to Liverpool depart from
Victoria, or from (Piccadilly + Oxford Road)

It's pretty standard in south London, as many stations are served by
trains from more than one of Waterloo, Victoria, Blackfriars and London
Bridge.

Some of the stations are served in both directions as well (e.g.
Lewisham, Clapham Junction) by trains on loop routes although the
displayed destination tends to be changed during the journey thus
preventing unwanted journeys by the pretty route. North of the Thames,
trains leave Highbury and Islington (also Canonbury) for Clapham
Junction in opposite directions; some are at identical departure times
(so you can choose the wrong platform rather than the wrong station).

They take pretty well the same time, don't they?

[Roland Perry]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson
North of the Thames,
trains leave Highbury and Islington (also Canonbury) for Clapham
Junction in opposite directions; some are at identical departure times
(so you can choose the wrong platform rather than the wrong station).

They take pretty well the same time, don't they?

Yes, 46 & 47 minutes; but there are twice as many via Canada Water.
The ones via Willesden Junction are only 2tph.

At both ends, when there are trains leaving almost together, they are 2
minutes apart. However, the clockwise ones are to Stratford, and the
anti-clockwise Highbury.

[Someone Somewhere]

Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 23:14:07 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Roger Lynn
Having some trains going to Paddington and others to Marylebone would
be particularly awkward when travelling out from London as you could
go to one station only to find that the next train left from the
other.

Not a problem in Manchester, where trains to Liverpool depart from
Victoria, or from (Piccadilly + Oxford Road)

It's pretty standard in south London, as many stations are served by
trains from more than one of Waterloo, Victoria, Blackfriars and London
Bridge.

Some of the stations are served in both directions as well (e.g.
Lewisham, Clapham Junction) by trains on loop routes although the
displayed destination tends to be changed during the journey thus
preventing unwanted journeys by the pretty route. North of the Thames,
trains leave Highbury and Islington (also Canonbury) for Clapham
Junction in opposite directions; some are at identical departure times
(so you can choose the wrong platform rather than the wrong station).

They take pretty well the same time, don't they?

And isn't there an oddity that the fares are the same and you don't get
penalised for going clockwise via Shoreditch High Street?

So, they take roughly the same amount of time and cost the same and the
net effect of either is that you've got from Highbury and Islington to
Clapham Junction which is I assume what you wanted...

[Barry Salter]

Post by Roger Lynn
I had thought the plan was to divert a couple of the existing
services to Oxford. The xx48 from Marylebone would be an obvious
choice: it terminates at Bicester, rather than the more natural
Banbury, and doesn't connect with anything. However the matching xx18
service which would be the other one to send to Oxford does have a
connection at Bicester North and is also sometimes extended to
Banbury or Stratford (even though it would be better to extend the
xx48).

The latest iteration of the October timetable has been uploaded into
ITPS, so is now available in journey planners, and it's a fairly major
recast in the off-peak!

Northbound from Marylebone:

xx.05 - Oxford Parkway (fast to Haddenham & Thame Parkway)
xx.10 - Birmingham Moor Street (High Wycombe, then fast to Banbury)
xx.13 - Aylesbury via High Wycombe (fast to Gerrards Cross)
xx.16 - High Wycombe (Wembley Stadium, South Ruislip, Gerrards Cross,
Beaconsfield)
xx.27 - Aylesbury via Amersham
xx.35 - Oxford Parkway (fast to High Wycombe, then Bicester Village)
xx.40 - Birmingham Snow Hill (Bicester North, Banbury...)
xx.43 - Banbury (fast to Gerrards Cross)
xx.46 - Gerrards Cross (stopper)
xx.57 - Aylesbury Vale Parkway via Amersham

The xx.10 Birminghams are the current xx.15s, but with an additional
call at High Wycombe; xx.13 is the current xx.21; xx.16 the current
xx.25(ish); Mets return to xx.27 and xx.57; xx.40 is the current xx.45
minus the High Wycombe call; xx.43 is the current xx.48 and xx.46 is the
current xx.52.

Cheers,

Barry

[Roger Lynn]

Post by Barry Salter
The latest iteration of the October timetable has been uploaded into
ITPS, so is now available in journey planners, and it's a fairly major
recast in the off-peak!
xx.05 - Oxford Parkway (fast to Haddenham & Thame Parkway)
xx.10 - Birmingham Moor Street (High Wycombe, then fast to Banbury)
xx.13 - Aylesbury via High Wycombe (fast to Gerrards Cross)
xx.16 - High Wycombe (Wembley Stadium, South Ruislip, Gerrards Cross,
Beaconsfield)
xx.27 - Aylesbury via Amersham
xx.35 - Oxford Parkway (fast to High Wycombe, then Bicester Village)
xx.40 - Birmingham Snow Hill (Bicester North, Banbury...)
xx.43 - Banbury (fast to Gerrards Cross)
xx.46 - Gerrards Cross (stopper)
xx.57 - Aylesbury Vale Parkway via Amersham
The xx.10 Birminghams are the current xx.15s, but with an additional
call at High Wycombe; xx.13 is the current xx.21; xx.16 the current
xx.25(ish); Mets return to xx.27 and xx.57; xx.40 is the current xx.45
minus the High Wycombe call; xx.43 is the current xx.48 and xx.46 is the
current xx.52.

Thanks, that's interesting. That leaves the xx.05 as being the current xx.18
and the xx.35 is new.

Hopefully the xx.43 will connect with the xx.10 at Banbury, although
presumably it will sometimes be extended to Stratford and I don't know how
the timetabling would fit for that. The xx.40 appears to lose the Bicester
North connection that the xx.45 has, but it's not a very good connection and
Banbury is a better place to change anyway.

If the above timetable is repeated through the day it means Aylesbury has
gained a regular London via HW service which it hasn't had for many years
but Stratford continues to lose its regular London service (I think it used
to be every 2 hours).

Travelling between Oxford and Aylesbury or between Aylesbury and anywhere
North of Banbury will be awkward unless doubling back is allowed between
Princes Risborough and HW.

Roger

[Peter Smyth]

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by Barry Salter
The latest iteration of the October timetable has been uploaded
into ITPS, so is now available in journey planners, and it's a
fairly major recast in the off-peak!
xx.05 - Oxford Parkway (fast to Haddenham & Thame Parkway)
xx.10 - Birmingham Moor Street (High Wycombe, then fast to Banbury)
xx.13 - Aylesbury via High Wycombe (fast to Gerrards Cross)
xx.16 - High Wycombe (Wembley Stadium, South Ruislip, Gerrards
Cross, Beaconsfield)
xx.27 - Aylesbury via Amersham
xx.35 - Oxford Parkway (fast to High Wycombe, then Bicester Village)
xx.40 - Birmingham Snow Hill (Bicester North, Banbury...)
xx.43 - Banbury (fast to Gerrards Cross)
xx.46 - Gerrards Cross (stopper)
xx.57 - Aylesbury Vale Parkway via Amersham
The xx.10 Birminghams are the current xx.15s, but with an
additional call at High Wycombe; xx.13 is the current xx.21; xx.16
the current xx.25(ish); Mets return to xx.27 and xx.57; xx.40 is
the current xx.45 minus the High Wycombe call; xx.43 is the current
xx.48 and xx.46 is the current xx.52.

Thanks, that's interesting. That leaves the xx.05 as being the
current xx.18 and the xx.35 is new.
Hopefully the xx.43 will connect with the xx.10 at Banbury, although
presumably it will sometimes be extended to Stratford and I don't
know how the timetabling would fit for that. The xx.40 appears to
lose the Bicester North connection that the xx.45 has, but it's not a
very good connection and Banbury is a better place to change anyway.

Yes, eg the 1143 arrives Banbury 1302, the 1210 calls at Banbury 1307.

The only through trains to Stratford are 0618, 1824, 2043. No through
off-peak services. There will be a connection at Leamington every 2
hours from the xx10. This will actually be a bit quicker than the
current 3-hourly through train.

Peter Smyth

[Basil Jet]

Post by Barry Salter
The latest iteration of the October timetable has been uploaded into
ITPS, so is now available in journey planners, and it's a fairly major
recast in the off-peak!

October of which year? The Chiltern website says the current timetable
is valid until this December.

[Roger Lynn]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Barry Salter
The latest iteration of the October timetable has been uploaded into
ITPS, so is now available in journey planners, and it's a fairly major
recast in the off-peak!

October of which year? The Chiltern website says the current timetable
is valid until this December.

The full proposed October 2015 timetable is available from
http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/october-timetable

"On 26th October we shall commence the operation of services between Oxford
Parkway and London Marylebone"

Roger

[Robin9]

;149717']As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day
M-F,
to Paddington. It's run mainly for maintaining driver route knowledge
for the occasions when Chiltern services are diverted to Paddington.
It's not quite a parly service, as it runs at a convenient time, five
days a week, but it's also not promoted and little used other than by
rail enthusiasts (the few passengers are all sole males with cameras).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157654494380303
But it got me wondering if Chiltern could or should run more services
into Paddington? Chiltern's services are growing steadily, with 2 tph
Oxford services being added soon. The two-track route into Marylebone
is congested, as are Marylebone's six platforms. Would it be possible
to run, say, 2 tph into Paddington? There's obviously many
- the single track sections on the neglected former main line from
South Ruislip to Old Oak Common, which also sees occasional freight
trains
- the flat Old Oak Common West Junction to the GW relief lines
- capacity on the relief lines into Paddington
- Paddington platform availability.
But might there still be room for a limited number of Chiltern
services, maybe even at peak times? Once Crossrail starts, there will
be more room in Paddington itself, but what about on the approach
lines?

I travelled on this train this morning. Very interesting. There was on
other
passenger - with the regulation camera - and a member of staff i
civilian
clothes who seemed to be the guard. He said the reason for the servic
was
to maintain Chiltern's right of way into Paddington and seemed to thin
that
staff training was a secondary consideration.

He also confirmed there was no chance of Chiltern sending more trains t

Paddington because of a lack of train paths and platforms.

Does anyone know why there are such severe speed limits on this line
The
parallel Central Line moves quite quickly and the track seems to b
well-
maintained


--
Robin9

[Basil Jet]

I travelled on this train this morning. Very interesting. There was one
other
passenger - with the regulation camera - and a member of staff in
civilian
clothes who seemed to be the guard. He said the reason for the service
was
to maintain Chiltern's right of way into Paddington and seemed to think
that
staff training was a secondary consideration.
He also confirmed there was no chance of Chiltern sending more trains to
Paddington because of a lack of train paths and platforms.

What use is maintaining Chiltern's "right of way" if they don't have the
right to more than one path a day?

[Paul Corfield]

Post by Basil Jet

I travelled on this train this morning. Very interesting. There was one
other
passenger - with the regulation camera - and a member of staff in
civilian
clothes who seemed to be the guard. He said the reason for the service
was
to maintain Chiltern's right of way into Paddington and seemed to think
that
staff training was a secondary consideration.
He also confirmed there was no chance of Chiltern sending more trains to
Paddington because of a lack of train paths and platforms.

What use is maintaining Chiltern's "right of way" if they don't have the
right to more than one path a day?

It avoids the horror, for the DfT, of going through the formal closure
procedure. DfT are undboubtedly happy to avoid drawing any attention
to the route, its appalling condition and the poor train service. If
people became aware of the route all sorts of outrageous demands, like
a decent train service or, horror of horrors, linking into Crossrail
might be suggested and we can't have that. You can guarantee that if
anyone did anything about closing the service in the next few months
that it'd become a Mayoral election issue in West London and London
Travelwatch would never, ever agree to a closure of a main line link
into a London terminal.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by Basil Jet

I travelled on this train this morning. Very interesting. There was one
other
passenger - with the regulation camera - and a member of staff in
civilian
clothes who seemed to be the guard. He said the reason for the service
was
to maintain Chiltern's right of way into Paddington and seemed to think
that
staff training was a secondary consideration.
He also confirmed there was no chance of Chiltern sending more trains to
Paddington because of a lack of train paths and platforms.

What use is maintaining Chiltern's "right of way" if they don't have the
right to more than one path a day?

It avoids the horror, for the DfT, of going through the formal closure
procedure. DfT are undboubtedly happy to avoid drawing any attention
to the route, its appalling condition and the poor train service. If
people became aware of the route all sorts of outrageous demands, like
a decent train service or, horror of horrors, linking into Crossrail
might be suggested and we can't have that. You can guarantee that if
anyone did anything about closing the service in the next few months
that it'd become a Mayoral election issue in West London and London
Travelwatch would never, ever agree to a closure of a main line link
into a London terminal.

That sounds far more likely than Chiltern wanting to maintain a right of
way.

I'm wondering... if a link from the line to the West London line was
built, perhaps using an S-shaped curve from just south of Old Oak Common
Depot to Hythe Road / Salter Street, would an hourly service from, say
Aylesbury and Princes Risborough to Shepherds Bush and further (say,
Brixton and Orpington) be popular? And would that remove the legal need
for the daily Chiltern service to Paddington, and the parliamentary bus
service from Ealing to Wandsworth Road?

[Paul Corfield]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by Basil Jet

I travelled on this train this morning. Very interesting. There was one
other
passenger - with the regulation camera - and a member of staff in
civilian
clothes who seemed to be the guard. He said the reason for the service
was
to maintain Chiltern's right of way into Paddington and seemed to think
that
staff training was a secondary consideration.
He also confirmed there was no chance of Chiltern sending more trains to
Paddington because of a lack of train paths and platforms.

What use is maintaining Chiltern's "right of way" if they don't have the
right to more than one path a day?

It avoids the horror, for the DfT, of going through the formal closure
procedure. DfT are undboubtedly happy to avoid drawing any attention
to the route, its appalling condition and the poor train service. If
people became aware of the route all sorts of outrageous demands, like
a decent train service or, horror of horrors, linking into Crossrail
might be suggested and we can't have that. You can guarantee that if
anyone did anything about closing the service in the next few months
that it'd become a Mayoral election issue in West London and London
Travelwatch would never, ever agree to a closure of a main line link
into a London terminal.

That sounds far more likely than Chiltern wanting to maintain a right of
way.
I'm wondering... if a link from the line to the West London line was
built, perhaps using an S-shaped curve from just south of Old Oak Common
Depot to Hythe Road / Salter Street, would an hourly service from, say
Aylesbury and Princes Risborough to Shepherds Bush and further (say,
Brixton and Orpington) be popular? And would that remove the legal need
for the daily Chiltern service to Paddington, and the parliamentary bus
service from Ealing to Wandsworth Road?

The RR bus went a couple of years ago. DfT did close that passenger
service.

I suspect the "once a day" train is a franchise obligation set by DfT
and Chiltern run it as instructed. Simple as that.

[Robin9]

;150276']On 2015\09\18 16:54, Robin9 wrote:-
I travelled on this train this morning. Very interesting. There wa
one
other
passenger - with the regulation camera - and a member of staff in
civilian
clothes who seemed to be the guard. He said the reason for the service
was
to maintain Chiltern's right of way into Paddington and seemed t
think
that
staff training was a secondary consideration.
He also confirmed there was no chance of Chiltern sending more train
to
Paddington because of a lack of train paths and platforms.-
What use is maintaining Chiltern's "right of way" if they don't have th
right to more than one path a day?

You'll have to ask Chiltern. I'm only the messenger


--
Robin9

[Peter Smyth]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Robin9
I travelled on this train this morning. Very interesting. There was
one other
passenger - with the regulation camera - and a member of staff in
civilian
clothes who seemed to be the guard. He said the reason for the
service was
to maintain Chiltern's right of way into Paddington and seemed to
think that
staff training was a secondary consideration.
He also confirmed there was no chance of Chiltern sending more trains to
Paddington because of a lack of train paths and platforms.

What use is maintaining Chiltern's "right of way" if they don't have
the right to more than one path a day?

The main use is as a diversionary route at weekends if Marylebone is
closed.

Peter Smyth

[Offramp]

Post by Recliner
As most people here must know, Chiltern runs one service a day, M-F,
to Paddington.

There is a YouTube video about this, dated 7/12/2017, at

in case anyone's interested.

It came up in my recommended videos column, which is slightly worrying.