Great Western Coffee Shop

I have to say that FGW have really not taken advantage of the redoubling project.

The timetable has barely improved. Trains are still waiting for ages in loops (but to be fair, that's NR's fault for redoubling the wrong sections). Car parking is poor. Still lots of Thames Turbos. At least punctuality is getting better.

I really hope the new franchise agreement demands an upgrade of stations and the service. An hourly service to Foregate Street at a minimum with the best possible journey time. It is not acceptable to wait and wait when all the money has been spent (plus the long closures that have had little benefit).

If passenger don't improve because of this, then similar projects will be axed, citing the Cotswold line as proof it's a waste!

But the justifcation was to reduce delays not a better service.

The justification for Network Rail investing ^67 million was to improve the punctuality of Cotswold Line trains at Oxford to 92.7%, as delays and out of sequence trains had been causing major knock-on effects through the Thames Valley.  Clearly this has been a success as btline acknowledges.

The upgrade was never predicated on the basis of a service improvement

FGW has always said they would allow the infrastructure to shake down for a year before looking at point-to-point timings which could lead to a revised timetable from December 2012.  Until then, any time savings are being used as a perfromance buffer which does mean some trains will be sitting around to wait time before proceeding.  But those trains are very much on-time!

Network Rail carried out exhaustive option analysis before deciding on the section of route to be redoubled, and option 6 was implemented as it gave the best results.

FGW has secured 5 Adelante trains from the summer to replace the remaining Turbo diagrams, and car park improvcements have been approved for Charlbury and Pershore stations.  An announcement is still awaited on a new car park at Hanborough.

The infrastructure is designed to allow a more frequent service if the rolling stock can be found and this is clearly something for DfT to specify in the new franchise.

Why not? If you want to maximise your ROI you need to look at more than improved relaibility which was already improved by padding the timetables.


Can you point us to the options and the objectives? Gave the best results for what? What cost / revenue benefits were modelled? The best result would be to re-double the entire length so there must have been an initial budget restricition. What was it?


These were used and proved unsatisfactory in the past. I liked them as a passenger, but their reliability was very poor and their costs excessive. What's changed to improve them?

Alongside the hourly service along the line, surely, if done correctly then developing the Moreton - Oxford service and running LM Birmingham-Worcester services to Evesham would significantly benefit the Cotswold line. Both can only be achieved if either end is doubled (less the junctions which may prove more difficult) rather than Honeybourne-Morton which only benefits services that run the whole length when the train is defective as per recent post about Honeybourne.

According to the latest RAIL magazine, all 14 Adelante's are going to receive modifications to improve their reliability.  In a project costing ^5 million for owner Angel Trains, there will be modifications to the HVAC system (air conditioning), new bogies to improve ride quality, and 15 other modifications including modifying the wire looms (moving them further away from the exhausts).

The jury will remain out as to whether this does much for their day to day reliability but Hull Trains are currently recording a 15000 mile per casualty figure which compares pretty favourably with HSTs and Turbos on FGW.  As I've said though, with 5 units and an expected 4 diagrams a day (that's asking for 80% availability) I expect there to be the occasional 'Turbotutions' still!

Btline must already know that from the various times he asked that question in the early days of the project - unless he intentionally ignores everything he's already had explained...

Paul

Hi Paul,
The objective,as I understand it, was to improve relaibility, i.e. trains arriving at the scheduled time and to avoid knock-on disruption. This was achieved by padding the timetable without any outlay from Network Rail. So was the objective to remove the padding? Was there an objective to get xx% reliability within an specific journey time from Worcester to Oxford? Exactly what was the objective? (not the headline "to improve reliability" what were the metrics that were used)

The sole aim of the double track was to reduce delays caused by late running trains.  Trains coming off the branch at Oxford late were causing large delays to trains towards London Paddington.

This has been discussed to death in previous threads, but my understanding is that the debate hinges on people's different interpretations of the phrase 'service improvements'. 

I myself reckon the evidence is all available in NR's enhancement plans to show that the aim was to improve the existing service to the extent that it ran reliably, and that was all.  Nothing about additonal or faster services.

eg: "This project facilitates a robust hourly train service and reduces the impact of delays throughout the
Thames Valley corridor to and from Paddington and reduces delays to north-south services via Oxford."

From the Mar 11 NR CP4 enhancements plan

Paul

But altering the timetable to introduce padding - particularly at Moreton and Evesham - achieved that - so why spend ^60+ Million?
If you extend the journey time from Worcester to Oxford you will increase reliability because you introduce recovery time to compensate for delays - and you've saved money.
If it was the sole aim it was a total waste of money - simple as that.

Hi Paul,

My point is there is simply no need to re-double to achieve the stated objective - just timetable in recovery time, which was done by 'padding'. I just can't see why you then spend ^60 mill to achieve what you have already done.

From the Network Rail website:

"By laying 20 miles of new double track on the Cotswold line we^ve enabled trains to pass each other more easily, boosting capacity on the route, cutting delays and resulting in better journeys on the line between London, Oxford and Worcester...Our scheme has provided capacity for more trains and improved performance, meaning better journeys on the route between London, Oxford and Worcester."

Yes, reliability is better. But the project was to enable an hourly service. The old infrastructure couldn't quite manage it. It could now. I'm glad that Thames Valley services no longer get screwed up by late running Cotswold trains, but can we please have an hourly (or preferably more) service?


I also dispute the "modelling" done as I have here before, and think the sections were picked to minimuse the number of stations that would have to be re-done (fair enough, to keep costs down).

If trains are tiemtabeled to pass at a point (i.e. the Evesham loop), it makes sense to extend the loop on both sides, enabling a train to depart even if the incoming service is too late. What was done? Tiny extension to the West, so late up trains still delay down trains and extra padding has to be put in.

Of course, if the timetable were re-written so trains passed at Honeyboune, it would be fine. I assumed this would happen to benefit the service.

I'm pretty sure FGW and NR said that they looked forward to seeing what journey time enhancements could be made. Of course, after Reading I expect London to Oxford to be cut to 50 minutes. At least 10 minutes could be cut off the rest of the journey time to Worcester in an instant by removing slack.

The main reason why punctuality cannot be improved on the CL is that trains pass at the ends of the nearly 30 mile double track. I think it has been acknowledged that to get maximum benefit from the recent redoubling project, trains need to pass well away from the ends of the double track, i.e. east of Evesham and west of Charlbury so that one late running train is less likely to delay another going in the opposite direction, still a frequent situation. Such delays are now less likely to be so severe at the Charlbury end now because the length of time needed to traverse the single track section is around half the time than before the 4 mile double track was installed last year but they still happen. To do this would mean changing departure times from Paddington and Worcestershire. As everyone knows trains depart from Paddington every few minutes so that to change CL train times would mean changing the times of other trains to Wales and the west country. This would be a major very complicated change. Similarly, there is a major need to improve flexibility of track use at Worcester where trains are often delayed and then delay a down train waiting at Evesham but this needs more infra-structure development.

Hopefully there will be an entire recast soon.
Or do we have to wait for Reading, IEP and electrification are finished?

I also assume that when Oxford or Worcester are re-done signalling/tracks wise, at least the junctions will be doubled, if not the rest of the single track.

I suggest your thoughts and assumptions are included in your submission - presuming you are going to make one - into the new franchise consultation?  I know I will be making similar comments.  Timetable re-casts aren't quite as simple as they sound though, especially if they involve Paddington (difficult to change due to the number of other services) and Worcester (difficult to change due to the inflexible signalling between there and Hereford and other TOC's requirements, London Midland in this case).

In terms of Oxford's resignalling, I personally would assume the junctions will not be doubled, but that 'passive provision' will be made for that to be done when/if the section onwards to Charlbury is re-doubled.  Then again, perhaps the Oxford Corridor Enhancements programme that NR are hoping to achieve will go further than those described in the Initial Industry Plan?

I agree with BT Line as so far, all the benefits of re-doubling do not appear to have been realised. Yes, this topic has been done to death so I'll keep it brief. I have given examples before of how an existing service such as the 0534 ex Hereford could have its slack cut out and run from Charlbury in the times of the new 0713 (that would really please Oxford commuters), and the stock for the 0713 starting from Moreton in the times of the 0534 ex Hereford. Also, that Great Malvern now has 2 less well timed services since September, and indirectly has lost a peak commuter service to Worcester. You could argue that delays on the Cotswold Line were largely caused by trains running late out of Paddington to Oxford; the single track then made those delays worse. On the other hand how many times do we see frequent late running of the Cross Country service between Oxford and Reading; surely the amount of late running trains on that route have quite an impact on other services? Also, though it is a pointless saying it now, I would have doubled Norton Junction to Evesham rather than Honeybourne to Moreton. Ascott under Wychwood has some shiny new platforms but no more trains; this week (half-term), it would have have been an idea to maybe stop 2 off-peak trains a day in each direction to try and glean some extra journeys. 

I think it's very valid to point out two things:

1)  More trains now run on the route east of Moreton-In-Marsh.  Those services could not have been accommodated unless the infrastructure had been upgraded.
2)  Padding is only half the story really.  What has been achieved with spending all that money is a route that is far more robust for service recovery when there are problems.  Before the redoubling, as an example, there were occasions when a delay of say 40 minutes to a Paddington to Worcester service early on a Sunday afternoon would then knock on to services many hours later, whilst waiting for the long Moreton-Evesham section to clear of the previous delayed train (and to a lesser extent the Wolvercote to Ascott section).  All of these delayed trains would then potentially cause problems west of Worcester for London Midland services, and south of Oxford on the London route which invariably has tightly pathed trains working to a two track timetable on a Sunday at some point between Didcot and London.  Now things are hugely improved.  It's unlikely that the 40 minute delayed service will do much more than delay one other train by about 10 minutes or so, and as a result those delays, which might not have originated on the Cotswold Line, are soon absorbed and recovered.

However, I do share peoples views that the service levels and timings remain disappointing.  I feel there is scope to improve the weekday service west of Moreton-In-Marsh so that it has a near hourly service.  I feel there is good scope to close those two two-hour gaps on Saturday lunchtimes in the up direction between Worcester and Oxford, and I feel there is scope (and much demand) for a better up service on Sundays with an earlier train starting at Moreton-In-Marsh as well as plugging one of the two two-hour gaps that exist on Sundays - having only two trains from Worcester arriving into London before 3:30pm, both Turbos, is not good enough.


Journey time wise, there are a few tweaks that could be done, Steve's suggestions for example, but until a timetable recast is done there's little other scope.  I've been taking an interest in potential journey times now that drivers have got used to the increased speeds and later braking points, and reckon the optimum time for a journey from Oxford to Worcester (Shrub Hill) with all the 'usual' stops is about 1h 06 minutes for a Turbo.  Add a few minutes for padding and a regular 1h 10m schedule is workable.  Add a couple of minutes to that for a HST due to the dual menace of doors being left open and bikes, and potentially take a couple of minutes off of that for an Adelante with it's better acceleration and top speed.

So, working on a 1h 10m ideal schedule time, how many trains currently achieve anywhere near that?  Well, more than you might think.  On a weekday: 

• In the Down direction the 06:45 ex Oxford does it in 1h 14m, the 08:04 in 1h 11m, the 10:25 in 1h 09m (omitting Honeybourne), the 12:19 in 1h 12m, and the 18:49 (omitting Hanborough and Honeybourne, but including Shipton) in 1h 14m.
• In the Up direction things aren't as good.  The 05:11 (omitting Honeybourne) does it in 1h 14m, but everything else creeps towards and sometimes quite a way over the 1h 20m mark.  Oh, except for the Didcot flyer which omitting Honeybourne and Hanborough is scheduled for a blistering 1h 04m!

The trouble is, most of those trains are not the really busy services for commuters and business travellers, who've seen little, or no improvement in their journey times.  That's where a timetable recast could make some real inroads.

I acknowledge that extra trains run South of Moreton. But it's a drop in the ocean to have the odd service extended.

It is good to see that a 2 hour 10 minute journey time can become routine on the infrastructure, and I hope FGW and NR work together to work out a timetable that allows this for a basic hourly service. I also hope that a few more trains can be extended to Charlbury in return for fewer Hanborough stops. (what has happened to the Charlbury - Didcot shuttles that were promised?) This may need extra redoubling of course. The extra trains can stop at Shipton and one out of Combe and Finstock, building up demand.

I stand by the controversial idea that one peak train in each direction misses out the halts plus Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore, saving a further 10 minutes, allowing the possibility of a 1 hour 50 minute journey time to Worcester (50 mins to Oxford, a further hour to Worcester) sparking demand in the region.

I dispute the claim that padding helps reliability. As we've already established, the addition of padding just results in slack railway operations. Indeed, some of the operation I have witnessed on the Cotswold line has been shocking, with no apparent urgency to get the train away on time. The result being that the trains are even later despite having more time in the timetable. Padding is purely put in to help TOCs pay less in fines. All this padding needs to be axed (or at least shoved to the penultimate stop like Chiltern do) and operations made slicker.

Remember, there's a reason people are prepared to drive all the way to Warwick Parkway/Birmingham International. Many people just do not even consider using Worcester's train service: be it a business trip to London, or commuting from the Vale to the City. The re-doubling is not enough, we need a new timetable and a fanfare of publicity about it.

Most of the above comments are pretty on the ball. There are now very few incidents that occur on the CL that delay trains off the CL and that was the main justification that got the 20 mile redoubling project approved. Remember that in the previous RUS (not the most recent one) redoubling of the CL was rejected on the grounds that there was no economic case for spending the necessary money. It was only when CL performance sank to very poor levels a few years ago now that redoubling was approved because delayed CL trains were causing substantial probelms to other trains when they came off the CL at Worcester and Oxford.
With regards to doubling of the two remaining single track sections, in the most recent RUS NR included an "aspiration" to redouble the Charlbury/Wolvercote section, but that cannot be done at present until the major resignalling of the Oxford area has been done as there is no spare capacity at Oxford to control double line points. I suspect that at Norton Junction there are similar constraints.
Today I was travelling back towards Oxford on the 10.49 Turbo that departed Moreton about a minute late. However at Charlbury it was delayed as the Down arrival at Charlbury scheduled for 11.06 was late by about 4 minutes resulting in our train departing 5 minutes late. The Down train is one of the new services introduced since redoubling that only goes westwards as far as Moreton. This was an example of the type of delays we mow experience.
Incidentally, my train was almost full at Moreton and I had one of the few remaining unoccupied seats. By Kingham it was standing. By Charlbury the vestibules were full and by Hanborough, where about a dozen boarded, iyt was standing through the carriage seating area. I just wonder how many people there would have been on the next Up train that started from Moreton an hour later. I know it is school half term but there seemed to be only between 10 & 20 school children on board. Such is the growing use of the CL.

Absolutely - but that's not in the plan.

I firmly believe that doubling the East and West ends rather than Honeybourne-Moreton would have been far better. They could have not only got the reliability they need but also build a far better service offering at both ends of the line. Seems to me a big opportunity was lost by only considering a very narrow brief.

Hi Btline,

The reason that TOCs pay fewer fines is because they meet their reliability targets, proof that padding does work. I agree it's crap but if your sole objective is an improvement in reliability then padding does it.

CPLG hits the nail on the head - the market is there at the East end of the line (as there would be at the West if LM ran thtough to Evesham).
You don't really need to redouble either Wolvercote or Norton, just run the double track to 100 yards of the relevant junction.

I have to say that does sound impressive usage-wise for an off-peak service.

I agree that LM to Evesham also needs to happen. But I doubt there are enough 170s to run, as it would require a doubling of Worcester - New Street (also desperately needed) service off peak. It's a shame an add on order of 172s wasn't put in.

There is such a lack of rail imagination in Worcestershire. This is surprising as it must have some of the worst traffic problems in the UK. I have driven in urban Newcastle and can say that it is less stressful than driving in most parts of rural Worcestershire!

_{The only other place other than London & Oxford I've been more stressed driving is and East Northamptonshire, where again, there is a poor rail service (the County only having 6 stations, one of which is Kings Sutton so doesn't really count).}

Having been a reader rather than a contributor for the last two and a half years Btline's comments have got me into action! Like others I agree with him that excess "padding" creates a sloppy operations environment where a minute here or there doesn't matter (as an ex SR SM I know every minute can count crucially). I have witnessed some truly awful discipline at Shrub Hill.  Numerous times I have seen an up train take three to four minutes in the platform and I do know what can and cannot cause delay. The lack of urgency (or dare I say pride) that sometimes occurs is really annoying. Having said this the above comments do not apply to the majority of staff. I have been generally impressed and sometimes delighted by the performance of the vast majority... but there are some. FGW were able to run a 2 hr Worcester to Paddington train fifteen years ago in the "rush hour" without the new infrastructure, so why not now.
As to additional services on the line, the suggestion of LM services  running through to Evesham could be enhanced with the trains running on via Long Marston to Stratford (it's good to dream) and complete the link and perhaps the Moreton terminators could run through to Startford as well (time and trains being available of course)

I'd be interested to hear your comments on point two of that post - which attempted to answer your question about what the money has helped achieve?  Also, what your thoughts are on the Class 180 reliability modifications I mentioned in reply to your post regarding those?  Also what you'd have done to resolve the Combe/Finstock conundrum should that section of the line have been redoubled?

Just a quick note about padding, restating what I've said before.  If there were no allowances in the timetable for recovery, i.e. if everything was operated to the optimum schedules, I would expect the NR national punctuality figures to drop down to below 80% from the 91% that NR have announced today.  You have to have a small amount of buffer, be it to allow for engineering speed restrictions, delays due to occasional problems like bikes loading or passengers boarding in wheelchairs, and finally for pathing issues.  The key is to make sure that additional slack in the schedules is the appropriate amount, and I think we all agree that the Cotswold Line timetable (virtually all slack due to pathing issues that still remain) still has too much.

Reference CLPG's comments about the 10:49 Turbo ex Moreton - yes it's a busy old train that one, especially in half-term week, but even at other times there are usually people standing from Oxford.  A 180 to be introduced soon will ease that crowding slightly, but it will remain busy, and if they try an Adelante on the previous service from Worcester (and keep the existing stops) then that will be very full every day of the week and a total nightmare during the holidays!

Let's hope that things are tightened up, timetables are recast and extra trains are added, but be mindful that the Olympics and change of franchise (as well as the upcoming improvement works) have all made this a little more awkward to achieve quickly.  And, finally, I reiterate that I hope everybody who's posted on here with their comments will be contributing to the franchise renewal consultation?  You still have more than a month to get your thoughts in.

Hi II,

Many thanks for your responses (which were excellent as ever).

Regarding your explanation I understand that the redoubling allows for a more robust schedule but I feel that so much more could have been accomplished. With both Pershore & Hanborough on single lines this counters some of the advantage. A stop at a station would add around 4 mins to the time the train is in that section (allowing for slowing down, stopping and accelerating back up to line speed). If you are running at say 70mph those 4 minutes equates to 4.5 miles of track! So by redoubling to cover those stations you would have the effect of adding roughly 9 miles of track. My point has always been that if the redoubling had been done more thoughtfully then not only would you achieve those things you have rightly pointed out, you would also provide a far better infrastructure for both the East & West ends of the line.

Regarding Coombe & Finstock they are so close to Charlbury / Hanborough that I would like them to go the way of Stoulton / Wyre Piddle / Fladbury / Littleton & Badsey / Chipping Camden / Adlestrop et al.

As far as the 180s are concerned, from a passenger's viewpoint I thought they were excellent. Better seating arrangement that the refurb Mk3s and on the whole a nice travelling experience. The downside was the reliability & the fact that a 5 coach 180 has almost the same seating capacity of a 3 coach Turbo - so replacing a Turbo with a 180 doesn't necessarily give more seats, although the seats are more useable in a 2+2 configuration rather than a 2+3 where the middle seat of 3 is often not used.

80% availability is frankly pitifull. Would you buy a car that would be off the road a day and a half a week?

Regarding padding, there are far more subtle ways of adding time to a journey rather than standing at a station. If, for example, you ran at a timetable speed of 60mph rather than the line speed of 80 mph the driver would have some opportunity to catch up if running late. You could also stop some of the practices that cause delays - I'm thinking, particularly, of banning bikes.

I'm not for padding, it's just that it could save a whole lot of money if the only objective is punctuality.


[/quote]

The objectives for redoubling were very simple, and were:

^   To improve performance along the route to 92% PPM for the existing service pattern; and
^   To enable the introduction of an hourly service, also at 92% PPM

The justification for the investment was that improved performance on the Cotswolds Line directly leads to improved performance in the Thames Valley, and especially between Reading and Paddington.  Simulation was carried out on six iterative options, all intended to deliver the 92% PPM performance level, using a route and timetable simulation model called RailSys.  The options tested were:

Option 1: Evesham remodelling;
Option 2: A dynamic loop centred on Evesham;
Option 3: Options 1 & 2 plus dynamic loop at Honeybourne;
Option 4: Option 3 plus Moreton remodelling;
Option 5: Redoubling from Evesham to Moreton; and
Option 6: Option 5 plus Redoubling from Ascott to Charlbury.

Option 6 gave the best result weighing up benefits and costs and was chosen.  The budget was then negotiated between Network Rail and DfT and value-engineered to achieve the desired output within the funds awarded.  I recall the figure went up a little before being fixed at ^67 million.  The scope was not fixed by the funding; the scope led the financing.

The project was never remitted to provide an hourly service, although the new infrastructure will now allow that to be operated to the same level of reliability.  Whoever said anything about there being a CBY-DID shuttle ^ that was never a proposal.

FGW has always said they would review the timetable in December 2012 once they had one years experience of the new infrastructure and the new timings had bedded in.

Norton Junction cannot be improved until the Worcester area is resignalled, and the same applies for Wolvercot Junction.  Oxford is due to be resignalled in 2015 but only on a like-for-like basis as something called Electrification needs to be up and running very soon afterwards.  Always the chance to revisit track layouts after that as part of the Oxford Corridor Enhancement in CP5.

Further to the above options, it should be remembered that these took into account the practical constraints, i.e. the lack of signalling resources at Oxford and Worcester that prevent doubling immediately east of Norton and west of Wolvercot. Had that been possible the exercise might have come out with different proposals.
With regard to the FGW promise to review the timetable after December 2012 it should also be remembered that since then FGW has decided to terminate the franchise at 31 March 2013. It seems to me that they are very unlikely to spend o lot of time looking at timetable changes with less than 6 months left on the franchise.

A rather limited pool of options were looked at...

Obviously Coombe/Finstock must be axed, though I doubt anyone will have the balls to do it. Just reduce the service to one train per week in one direction (on a Sunday evening) to keep it out the way and make it unusable! Ditto for Ascott. There'll be Daily Mail style articles in the local press with quotes from locals complaining they have to travel 5 minutes to Charlbury for about a month then it'll die down. Some urban areas don't have stations that close together! In this age of austerity, we should axe these money sinks.

It looks as if nothing much will be done until the new franchise, as such, we should get as many people to respond to the consultation. Hopefully it'll get better...

Thanks for your comments, Andy W - the point you make about time lost on a station stop is an interesting one, probably nearer to 2.5-3 minutes per station stop on linespeeds of 75-90mph rather than 4 minutes, but it is very relevant to the time a train takes to get through a section as you say.


I'm sure, off the record, FGW would be delighted to be able to take such measures, but I can just imagine the negative publicity it would cause.  I don't think it's going to happen, so you have to consider that when you come to making a decision, and that adversely affects your proposals as it will add a lot to the cost.  GWR2006's points regarding the restrictions on signalling at both ends also have to be considered.  His comments on the franchise renewal and upcoming electrification also echo my thoughts as to why we've not seen many improvements yet (with the Olympics thrown in for good measure).


It's not the best, but then again you don't rag your car for up to 18 hours a day, every day, at speeds of up to 125mph!  My point on reliability is that with only 5 units in the fleet, you either ask for 60% reliability and have three daily diagrams (achievable but pitiful), 80% reliability with four daily diagrams (achievable and realistic*), or 100% reliability (obviously not achievable).

* But 80% availability is only pretty easy to achieve as long as you have a large fleet and can absorb bad periods, with four daily diagrams you can have one unit out of service for routine maintenance, but if another then goes bang (which the 180s aren't exactly averse to doing) then all of a sudden you're a unit short.  That might equate to six or more separate trains a day.  I'm not sure what the plan for weekend utilisation of the 180s is, but if they all stay in the depot at weekends then perhaps that will be a way of better achieving the 80% mark as most of the routine maintenance could take place then.

As a side note, Train Managers at Paddington have started to learn (or re-learn in most cases) the route from Oxford to Great Malvern in readiness for their re-introduction.  Driver (re)training has yet to commence as we haven't got the units back, but can't be too far off.

As a final side note, here's the planned alterations as part of the Oxford Corridor Enhancements (taken from the Sept 2011 Initial Industry Plan) - let's hope they get the go-ahead:

CP5 output driver
The objective of the scheme is to improve capacity and capability on the ^Oxford Corridor^ to
meet the Initial Industry Plan objectives for capacity enhancement and reduction in end-to-end
journey time. The project aspiration is to allow up to three additional train paths an hour in each
direction to accommodate the future capacity requirements forecast in the Great Western RUS
(established March 2010) and the SFN forecast up to 2030.

Scope of works
 Implementation of an Oxford Up side south-facing bay. This element has been
developed previously to GRIP stage 4 (for the platform only). The proposed location of
the new platform necessarily uses part of the existing station car park (approx. 200
spaces). The project will consider how these spaces can be replicated and consider
proposals for linking this new platform with the existing station (access deck);
 provision of bi-directional (bi-di) signalling between Didcot North (Appleford), Hinksey
North, Oxford North Junction, Wolvercot Junction., Tackley, and Aynho Junction.
 reduction in headway between Wolvercot and Aynho using 3-aspect signalling to align
with Oxford area resignalling scheme and Banbury South resignalling;
 developing options for Down and Up passenger loops either at Hinksey or north of the
station with higher speed entrance connections to facilitate passenger trains passing
freight at increased length;
 increasing linespeeds in support of reduction in end-to-end journey times; and
 a double junction at Oxford North to facilitate increased capacity of connection to the
Bicester line (subject to the progression of East West railway).

Significant interfaces
Planned resignalling of the Oxford area programmed to commission in May 2015.
Key assumptions
 This scheme will align with the resignalling works at Oxford to achieve the maximum
synergy and cost benefit to this project;
 the resignalling team will be in a position to undertake the enhanced works; and
 the Strategic Freight Network upgrade programme is conducting a feasibility study into
the provision of a 775m loop on the Down-side of the layout Nth of Oxford. This loop
would carry passenger trains while freight trains were detained on the main running
lines. If this proceeds then the Down loop elements of this project are not required.


Also mentioned in a separate part of the document:
line speed increases - study into line speed increases on the South Wales main line and
on both the North and South Cotswolds lines.

Hi GWR2006, Thanks for your reply,


So what was the performance and exisitng service pattern at the time  of the re-doubling? IIRC once the timetable was 'padded' the performance was on target.
The hourly (or better) service is most important at peak hours - at those times, in the morning the predominant traffic is east bound, and in the evening it is west bound. One of the major restricitions of the single line was that you could not have more that one train on the single line section travelling in the same direction. This could have easily been rectified with intermediate signalling


Why wasn't it an option to re-double Honeybourne - West of Pershore and Ascott - East of Hanborough? You would easily achieve youe 92% PPM target and if that was done (with Coombe & Finstock joining Adlestrop etc) then you would have no stations on a single line. You would also enhance the market Evesham to the West and Moreton to the East (the latter proving itself already).


My point is the market Moreton / Charlbury - East (to Oxford / Reading / Paddington) is still ripe for growth. The market west from Evesham West to Worcester / Kidderminster / Birmingham / is one that could easily be developed. Both opportunities weren't even options despite spending over ^60 Million.


I'm not suggesting they are re-modelled or improved, purely that the double line runs close to them. This should not affect either Worcester or Oxford.

As it stands the section of line that should be least used (Honeybourne - Moreton) is a major section that was re-doubled.

Hi II,
Thanks for your reply. If you take your worst case 2.5 minutes @ 75 mph linespeed it still equates to over 3 miles per station or 3 minutes @ 90mph is 4.5 miles. Not inconsiderable.


The minority (bike riders) cause the majority (the rest of us) frequent delays. I would risk antagonising them and even try to make a virtue of it - I think the publicity may actually favour FGW.

As I have pointed out I am not suggesting any changes to either junction, merely that the double line section runs close to the junction, it would then be a single line, as is, over the jucntion to join the exisitng double lines into Worcester / Oxford.


I appreciate that with a fleet of 5 it is only practical to expect 4 to be available at any one time (80%) however I would expect 4 to be available 100% of the operational hours ie all routine maintenance / minor problem fixing to be performed outside operational hours. There will always be occaisions when turbostution is required but this should be exceptional.


Good news. Please don't tell us they will have 'refurbished' high density seating a la HSTs

Seconded!

Meanwhile, FGW are trying out a faster service today:

    From journeycheck:
    11:21 London Paddington to Great Malvern due 14:00
    This train will no longer call at Hanborough, Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton-In-Marsh, Honeybourne, Evesham and Pershore.
    This is due to a member of train crew being unavailable.

Can I enquire what's the logic here? Does it mean that there's no guard train manager to shut the doors?

Hmm.  ::)


 ???

I don't think it ran beyond Oxford at all.

I'll let you know as soon as I get to see one!  I suspect (and surmised as such in a post a month or so ago) that the money to reconfigure the seats won't be justified and they'll just be a bit of a spruce up internally.  Time is also an issue!  Longer term maybe, another 20 or so seats would be tempting, but could also be provided by cutting the current whole coach of 1st class to a composite carriage.  Or both options would give 40 or so extra standard class seats - enough to swallow growth for a few years until IEP?  It would be a shame to lose their current passenger friendly interiors though.

I looked a bit later, and it was on its way back from Malvern and running to time.

There is absolutely no reason why loading a bike onto a train has to be slow. Indeed, when I load my bike onto an HST at Charlbury, I'm usually taking my seat in carriage A while people are still boarding the other coaches.

The trick is to communicate the (simple) procedure clearly by means of posters and announcements. FWIW, over several years, the only occasion I can remember in which my loading a bike has caused a delay to an FGW train was a few months back at Reading. The HST (not a Cotswold service) was in reverse formation, unannounced, which rather took me by surprise. And the platform staff too...

Regular passengers don't present much of a problem - except for when there's 15 of them queued up at the back of an up HST at Reading in the morning all jostling for one of the remaining spaces, but irregular passengers do cause delays.  People simply don't listen to announcements or notice posters - the number of times I've seen people joining Coach E with a bike and then leaving when ushered out shortly afterwards.  Though perhaps a 'Passengers with bicycles should be ready to board at the rear of the platform' might help at the unstaffed Cotswold Line stations?  That's if they know which is the front and which is the rear!

I'll attempt to provide reasons for why this wasn't considered (only my guesses by the way, nothing official!), because on the face of it as AndyW says, the two areas on the line with most traffic, or most potential for growth are the two sections that remain single track, and in terms of running times, having no stations on the single line is desirable.

1)  Had Honeybourne to west of Pershore been redoubled you'd have had the additional cost of providing a new platform and footbridge at Pershore, and the additional cost of providing a replacement bridge (like the one at Honeybourne) which had previously been replaced with a single span.  You would also have had the additional cost and signals associated with the additional junction that would have been required at Honeybourne.  There's also the token systems to consider - presuming the removal of the Evesham to Norton token would have been unaffected, you would still have had the time consuming token system in place on the single line between Honeybourne and Moreton, unless money was spent on axle counters.  There would probably have been additional costs in converting/providing signals controlled from Evesham box and telephone equipment/signs controlling user worked crossings currently looked after from Norton would have needed altering.

2) Had Ascott to east of Honeybourne been redoubled you would have the additional cost of providing a new platform and footbridge at Hanborough.  You would have the additional cost of providing an additional platform at Combe* and the additional cost of rebuilding the existing platform and providing a new one at Finstock*.  You would then have the same costs associated with additional signals, some of those additional costs would have possibly been offset by the lack of money being spent on redoubling Honeybourne to Evesham, but I doubt all of them.

*  I appreciate AndyW has said he'd close Finstock and Combe stations, but as we've said that would create lots of negative publicity (even if, as I agree, it might make sensein the wider context of the line), but there is another important consideration.  Had the powers that be decided to bite the bullet and start the closure procedures, how long would that have taken?  Bearing in mind the whole project from inception to completion was pretty darn quick for a railway project, isn't there a real risk that we would have had to wait many more years for the scheme to be completed whilst statutory notice of closure and all the legal proceedings that would go with that were resolved?

re II's most recent comments - he is perfectly correct that it is a very complicated process to close a station (and quite rightly so as many stations might well have been closed that have not). However Thames Trains did try to close Combe and Finstock years ago but the bid was rejected because they did not go through all the formalities correctly and it was on a technical point that the bid was unsuccessful. Re the suggested removal of Hanborough stops, I doubt that FGW would favour this because of the enormous growth in Hanborough custom. I am not however talking about numbers of travellers as on that method of counting, Hanborough, although high, is not a lot different from other highgrwoth stations. Where the growth at Hanborough is, is in average fare per traveller. Years ago Hanborough's traffic was by a large chunk just to Oxford. However now the vast bulk is to London. This is because West Oxfordshire has become very attractive in recent years for commuters to relocate from London and SE area. The avarage Hanborough fare is probably about 10 times what it was 10 years ago and FGW wants that revenue. That is why  a scheme to double the car parking capacity at Hanborough has, I understand, been approved, despite not originally getting approval under the ^100M NR revenue generating fund. Finally, if the stops east of Moreton were to be removed I doubt that the trains would be more than half full before Oxford even if such a service would attract a few more Worcestershire travellers.

Hi II & CPLG

Many thanks for your response II.

Regarding Pershore, there is an existing road bridge with footpath at the end of the station so I would imagine installing ramps on both sides would be relatively straightforward.

I don't know the cost of the work in Camden Tunnel but that would all be saved but I agree that there would be additional cost - however I feel very confident that any additional cost would be offset by incremental revenue.

With regards to Combe (sorry I've spelt it incorrectly in previous posts) and Finstock. They are both within 2 miles of Charlbury / Hanborough (got that one wrong too!) . CPLG is correct closure notices were both published in March 1994 but due to procedural errors both were declared null and void. No further notices were issued. I can't see much adverse publicity, they have a token service and have minimal patronage (around 1% of their nearest station) so hardly significant. More interestingly, should the line be redoubled in the future then I would suggest both would need to be closed at that time anyway. Given II's excellent point over the length of time station closure can take then shouldn't that be done as a matter of course regardless? I'm sure that the dangling the carrot of redoubling would have minimised any objections anyway.

II, the fact is that while I can understand your comments as to why these options were not implimented I can see no valid reason for them not being included in the options.

I thought I saw signs on Cotswold Line platforms indicating where to wait if you had a bicycle.  Then again, perhaps I imagined it!

As for passengers leaving the train, if any bicycles are on board, the TM's announcement could include a reminder for passengers collecting bicycles to make their way to the front/rear.  Perhaps it would speed things up if there was access to the bicycle storage internally - assuming the door can be opened from the inside!  Possibly a security issue but, IIRC this could be done on e.g. the original 442 Wessex Electrics, though the TM's office was possibly adjacent to the storage area.

That'll be great news if it is indeed the case.  Where are the spaces going to be?


To not even have it as an option does appear a little strange.  If and when I get to speak to anybody in the know, I'll certainly ask them the question.  After all, it's not it NR's interests to redouble the wrong bits of track, so there must be a reason - that or the management didn't understand the problem.


There are signs, though they're right at the end of the platform, so the uninitiated don't see them!  A large sign with an arrow on the middle of the platform might help, though again I bet not everyone notices it - and it could double the delay if the train is in reverse!  To make the cycle facilities accessible from the inside would mean quite major alterations to the layout of the TGS as you have to walk through the TM's office to get to it, and besides getting bikes off in reasonable time isn't usually a problem.

Good to see the responses - thanks for all your replies so far.

I'm afraid it does seem to me that the "options" were done for cost, so are not necessary the best ones. Perhaps option 6 was the best, but the others discussed here would be better. Of course, budgets are limited and at least we have less single track to worry about now.

I still think the London centric attitude of FGW (when considering their HSS) will mean the untapped commuter flows to Worcester from the Vale will be ignored (esp when it would probably LM that would run services) - this is a shame.

As far as bikes are concerned, a message on the PIS and perhaps an announcement before the train arrived (have FGW installed auto PAs at the village stations?). Of course, it is different depending on the stock (Thames Turbo, 180 or HST).

Still, it's getting better! ;D

I think there's already the option of a stock-specific announcement for HSTs indicating the location of First Class (and, of course, the screens know what type of stock it is because they say "Formed of 3 coaches" or some such... though splits at Oxford tend to confuse it ;) ).

It shouldn't be too hard to record a slightly longer announcement. So, at Charlbury platform 2, add "Passengers with bicycles should load them by the footbridge."

Agreed with II that the signs are only obvious if you're in the right place to begin with. At Berwick on Saturday I noticed that East Coast have a large "how to travel with your bike" poster as soon as you enter the station.

An example of some of the slack in the schedules.  This train, a peak hour service, left Great Malvern 27 minutes late this morning.  It has little or no time booked in stations, but still managed to get to Paddington only 5 minutes late.  Twenty minutes was recovered after Charlbury!

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7190/6862229448_52c36cb11a_b.jpg)

There's an irony here. That's a good recovery from a schedule which is receiving some criticism for being too slack.   And that may well be justified in the case of the Cotswold line;  I'm not qualified to comment.

But I am aware of a local willingness on another line - the TransWilts here in Wiltshire - for potential passengers to have a service that includes a generous margin for recovering from earlier delays, with the margin inserted within the centre section of the line which has virtually no passenger trains at present.   Five extra minutes on the approach to Chippenham (Northbound) and five extra minutes before Trowbridge (Southbound) would be reasonable.

Why?   Because an allowance such as this would mitigate the possible effects of delays on the Portsmouth to Cardiff main line being transformed into delays on the Paddington to Bristol line.  We really don't want a TransWilts service that's more reasonable than the current one to cause delays elsewhere, especially bearing in mind the cost of delaying an HST.   And we would rather go for reliability and a good frequency than a service that's a few minutes faster, but only runs at rather silly times before dawn and mid-evening.

Our view may come to change further down our growth curve, when we get to the point of a similar scheme to the Cotswolds redoubling on the single line section of the TransWilts.

Interesting that the train made it from Worcester to London in exactly 2 hours. :o

All day every day please!! ;D

(Ok, I'll settle for 10 minutes slack...)

Are you feeling quite right, old boy?  Btline apparently accepting the need for slack in a timetable?  Whatever next??  :o ::) ;D

It tends to confirm thinking that there is slack. However the quoted recovery time of over 20 minutes took place off the CL indicating that the CL timings for this train are not excessive. Whilst this schedule shows a 15 minute journey time from Hanborough to Oxford (07.37 to 06.52) plus 4 minute dwell at Oxford, this is sometimes needed because of a south bound Cross-Country train using Wolvercote junction close to a CL train timing. However I think that in this case, the previous south bound train to this departs Oxford 20 minutes earlier at 06.36, so the question is why does it need 15 minutes when at a push it can be done in around 8. In some cases extra time between Charlbury could be justified if there is a Down train using the single track just before the 06.28 Charlbury departure but it seems there are no Down trains using the single track at this time of day. It looks from this schedule that similar generous timings were presumably lengthened several years ago when the single track increased the likelihood of delays to CL trains. FGW might well say that increased congestion south of Oxford has still increased the need for more generous timings. Of course the real reason might be that TOCs get punished financially for trains being late.

Hopefully once Crossrail, Reading, electrification and IEP are done the whole timetable can be rewritten. I'd expect ~10 minutes to come off London to Oxford at a shot. Reducing unnecessary slack could mean a near 2 hour journey time is possible or at least for a peak train each way.

True enough, the redoubling should (or could in most cases if the timetable was recast) remove the need for excessive timings - which after all is mostly between Hanborough and Oxford on this particular train as you've identified.  1h 03m from Oxford to Paddington with stops at Didcot & Reading is a little excessive but you'd probably not want to trim more than 5 minutes off of that.

No shortage of trains with slack actually on the Cotswold Line though - one example, Saturday's 18:35 GMV to PAD (which is one of the few Saturday trains that would make an ideal Adelante working - if they're being allowed out a weekends?).  It sits at WOS for 12 minutes, EVE for 10 minutes, before having 9 minutes wait at OXF - so potentially it could be 30 minutes quicker just by cutting out station dwell time.  That is by no means the only example.

Let's hope things improve soon!

I understand that the Adelantes, when introduced, will normally only operate Monday to Friday services. It will be back to Tubos at weekends for most off-peak services. Presumably with only 5 Adelantes available, routine maintenance on them will be done at weekends.

It's a bit of a shame that the extra comfort can't be enjoyed by passengers at weekends, but I thought that might be the case, and I suppose it's a bit of a trade off.  The majority of the Turbo operated services on Saturday and Sunday are now too full (between Paddington and Oxford) to be an Adelante and operate as 5 or 6-car formation on that busiest stretch. 

And much though I like the Adelantes, Turbos are much, much easier to load a bike onto, so personally I'll be glad to keep them at weekends!

HSTs should be used instead. There should be enough available on a Sunday instead of bleeding the Cotswold line dry as usual.

I've been on Turbos bursting at the seams - they seem to forget that Sunday is a busy day for rail travel. Instead passengers, often with luggage, have to put up with sardine like conditions, with no air conditioning as the train crawls down the line.