Great Western Coffee Shop

A petition has been created to campaign for double track on the Cotswold Line.

Click here to view it (you do not have to sign it): http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cotswold/

Please do sign it, and get as many people to sign as possible. You could even post the url on your webpages etc.

This may be a way to finally see some action!

Many thanks. :)

William, thanks for this.  The petition page has further details of what is being asked for ... do have a look there. You are NOT signing up for the petition just by following the link.

Many lines, including the Cotswold line all the way from Oxford to Worceter (and beyond?), Swindon to Kemble, Chippenham to Trowbridge and Salisbury to Exeter were singled about 40 years ago when traffic was much lower - about half the passengers as I recall.  It's said that singling saved the lines involved from total closure, but in all the four cases I mentioned it's now an operational headache and redoubling would be a relatively cheap way of increasing passenger journey capacity along the route.

Can others sign in / give more specifics?  I am reluctant to make specific comments on a line / petition outside my area.  Costings, projections, does the petition have support of the Cotswold line development group, etc .... I know it's early days yet on this one though!

Before I sign , can you confirm that you are in favour of providing the required extra platforms at Ascott - under - Wychwood , Combe and Finstock , and that these stations will not be shut on cost grounds if the line is redoubled?

I do not know the ins and outs of this but a few comments.........

Doubling will only help if the journey times can be shortened - at the moment every time table change the journey gets longer.  It is now nearly 2.5 hours from WOS to PAD (if on time) - four years ago it was just under two hours.  They add the extra time in so the trains arrive on time - but they never do.  For those who live the birmingham side of WOS it is far quicker to drive to birmingham international or take the train to birmingham and get Virgin into Euston.  Although ad hoc walk on fares are more expensive - virgin do good advance booking deals (even in first) and the season tickets are comparitive.  If you live west of wos towards evesham - many people pick up the Chiltern service to Marylebone - it is much cheaper and although they dont have a first class service the clubman carriages are pretty good.  Finally, if you live south of WOS it is easier and quicker to either drive to Cheltenham or get a train from Aschurch (assuming there is one) than it is to get into WOS.

Also, until FGW can guarantee the accomodation on a train - it is not going to seriously increase the passenger numbers.  Even though I have a season - if I travel at weekends I go via newport to Ludow (I live between ludlow and worcester) and pay the extra 36.00 i need to - it is random whether you get the scheduled service or a replacement - except in the case of this line, the replacement is not fit for purpose - Pad to hereford on a 165?  At the moment the last train you can get that is acceptable is the 1822 - i know the time table change is supposed to alter that but if a unit is needed for else where - it seems to be pulled from our line first.

On the other hand - I think FGW would have a case for not running full HST services north of Oxford (or maybe worcester) except at peak.  The trains are always busy as far as Oxford.  The peak ones are reasonably busy as far as WOS.  But except at peak times, beyond WOS, you an see the tumbleweeds.  Central trains do a reasonably reliable and regular service from Brum to Hereford via WOS - might make sense to terminate the non-peak paddington trains and make sure they connect well with Central through to Malvern and beyond.

it is a chicken and egg - they may get more passengers going up through the cotswolds if it is dualled - but probably not until the other issues are sorted out.  The question is - would having a dualled line help sort the other stuff out?

Quote from the Save The Train Forum :

Yes, I, personally, am in full favour of this- whether the gov are......?

If anything, I would like the short term solution to be adding passing loops at all stations- especially at Ascott- where the double track ends just before the station- MAD!

However, the long term plan MUST be for full dual track if service frequencies/reliability are to be improved- cash must be spent- they are spending plenty on the Olympics, and to be honest, redualling the Cotswold Line will benefit far more people!

Remember, my idea for separate express/local services would benefit the "halts" - the local services would probably make more stops as the halts than the one currently. As the local services would be Thames Turbos, not HST, there would not be train length problems (hopefully)- i.e. heath and safety would not complain.

Please do sign! And write to various MPs/FGW management. Sorry, I did not mention this issue on the petition- I had limited room.

YES, BUT AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION ONLY! See what I explained above. The things you have mentioned would improve reliability, but would not enhance capacity, and as (at the moment) Adalantes are constantly being replaced by Thames Turbos, causing critical overcrowding and an uncomfortable 2/3 hours for commuters- not acceptable for an InterCity service.

William,

While I have signed your petition, I do have reservations about your reference to "village stations", which might cover just about everywhere on the line apart from Evesham and Pershore. The reason the trains make as many calls as they do is because people want to use them.

In the 1970s, Pershore and Hanborough (PS Lee, the second platform survives here too) were down to a single daily train each way, now passenger journeys are in the 60,000-70,000 per year range at both. Honeybourne is somewhere near 30,000, despite having been closed from 1969-1981. If it had a decent train service, Shipton (and the Wychwoods generally) could well match that figure. Charlbury (232,000) generates almost as much traffic as Evesham (239,000), despite a far smaller population. Figures given are all for 2006.

If and when more double track is laid, the need to meet this demand will not change. Indeed a much enhanced service at Shipton would be justified and possible if the current timetabling constraints are removed.

By all means deal with slack scheduling on the Cotswold Line itself and the padding built into timings between Reading and London, but the days of the Cathedrals Express sweeping imperiously past everywhere except Moreton and Evesham are long gone. We may be a long way from London, but this route and much of the FGW network as far out as Bath and Bristol is now outer-suburban, not InterCity, which means current stopping patterns are here to stay.

I would just point out that I was quoting from one of our Save The Train contributors.


Good to hear. I do keep an eye out for any potential threats , given that closure has been proposed for these stations in the recent past (pages 120 - 122 of the link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103

What I meant was, that the current level of service could be maintained for places like Pershore, Chalbury etc., with places like Worcester seeing additional express services, to improve journey times and places like Shipton seeing additional local services.

Basically, increasing line capacity would enable all stations to have what they need.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the "halts" and village stations are important- however, the journey times for Worcestershire and herefordshire are far too long- especially if on  Thames Turbo! Expresses are needed (these would actually increase available seats on local services for the people of Pershore/Chalbury etc.).

Thanks for signing the petition- but remember, the key point in hand is the dual track and the increased reliability to go with it!

[/quote]

YES, BUT AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION ONLY! See what I explained above. The things you have mentioned would improve reliability, but would not enhance capacity, and as (at the moment) Adalantes are constantly being replaced by Thames Turbos, causing critical overcrowding and an uncomfortable 2/3 hours for commuters- not acceptable for an InterCity service.
[/quote]

But that has to be the starting point.

Except at peak - capacity is not the issue.

Fix the reliability and the accomodation

Run HST when you say you will

Then the peak will take off which will feed into off peak

When the cathedrals express was first stop oxford then charlbury, kingham, morton, evesham, worcester - it worked well.

Run reliable services to the cotswolds major stations and get the reliability up - its not a big ask in the medium term for hanboro passengers to pick it up elsewhere - same honeybourne. Pershore is not even in pershore so you need a car to get there - again - reliability to evesham is better than random arrival at pershore.

No point in increasing capacity until reliability and accomodation is sorted

I agree, the priority is the reliability. This is stressed above.

Then, with additional line capacity, the Cathedrals Express can actually become an express HST- Hereford, Malvern stas, Worcester stas, Evesham, Morton, Oxford, Reading and London only. It would then be feasible to travel to London from Herefordshire and Worcestershire for buisiness or even a daily commute. The village stations would keep their current level of service, but with faster journey times and more a more reliable service- again suiting businessmen and daytrippers.

Redoubling the Cotswold line could have so many benefits- for ALL PEOPLE on the route!

Another priority is to get rid of those Thames Turbos on the InterCity Cotswold trains- Thames Turbos are short distance (<1h) trains!

Not quite sure how we got from double track to Adelante unreliability, but do you really imagine FGW has been doing anything but the bare minimum maintenance on them since the summer, or even longer? Certainly nothing resembling reliability modifications has been attempted.

Fingers crossed the expanded HST fleet, despite the awful new interiors, will at least be reliable, even if the track and signals are less so - Network Rail is on notice from the Rail Regulator over possible enforcement action for its dismal performance on routes from Paddington, so it's not all FGW's fault.

And while the idea of limited-stop expresses may seem seductive to those travelling from Worcester, Malvern  and Hereford, however much you increase capacity on the Cotswold Line, all trains will still have to fit into the regular interval timetable beyond Oxford and, most importantly, Didcot, even the far more lucrative peak trains to and from Bristol and Cardiff. Rebuilding of Reading station will constrain capacity there for some years to come.

As generators of traffic and revenue for FGW, tiny little Moreton-in-Marsh, Kingham and Charlbury are FAR more important than Worcester.

As for passengers from Hanborough going elsewhere to catch trains, Charlbury's car park is near-full most weekdays already and have you ever tried to reach Oxford station by car during the morning rush-hour? I suspect not. If there were more capacity on the Cotswold Line, FGW would want all trains to call at Hanborough. Only timing constraints on the single track prevent this at the moment.

One of the key reasons for stopping the Hereford peak services at Honeybourne was to ease pressure at Evesham, where the station car park is minute.

Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore act as railheads for much wider areas (eg Hanborough should perhaps be renamed Witney Parkway), that is why FGW and Thames Trains before them have steadily increased the number of trains calling. And these stations are popular with passengers because they avoid the need to battle ever-increasing congestion to get into Worcester, Evesham or Oxford to join trains there.

Of the Oxfordshire halts, only Shipton and perhaps Ascott would justify much of an increase in services, so the idea of extra Turbo services shuttling up and down just isn't going to happen, not that most of us would want to see them back in any numbers anyway, having got used to having decent trains on the days that the Adelantes do get out of the depot.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. The days of prestige, limited-stop expresses are over, even the Flying Scotsman now makes four stops between London and Edinburgh. What people want are reliable, regular-interval trains, along the lines of Switzerland, where you can turn up at the station at the same time every hour and the train rolls in. And you won't get the reliability you all say you want until the extra capacity offered by double track is in place, along with a solution to the problems at Reading and the signals and track in the Thames Valley are renewed.

You do have a point.

However, some faster journey times in the morning peak would be well received for the long distance passengers- even if it is just 1 HST express, then all the rest stopping.

What do people think of Coombe, Finstock, Ascott and Shipton. Are they viable in the long term. Is the only reason why their patronage is low because of the few services (and lack of London services recently!)?

Isn't the platform at one of the halts actually where the other track was (I think the side was switched in the 80s)?
Does anybody travel on the "halts" train frequently? If so, how often does the train stop at them?

William,

You're right. Finstock's platform was moved when the track was slewed for 100mph running and sits on the trackbed.

As for the all-stations train, the idea the halts are request stops is a bit of a fiction, certainly on weekdays. I cannot recall a single journey where one has been skipped. There's always someone waiting to go into Oxford in the mornings, nor have I ever known halts passengers on the return service being asked to make themselves known to the train's crew. They just stop anyway. Again, someone always seems to get off. The only trains I have ever used that did skip halts were Saturday services (now only offered from Shipton anyway), which would slow on the approach to the halts to see if there was any custom, then accelerate away if no-one showed themselves. All the Shipton trains seem to stop whatever the time of day.

As for custom at these stations, Combe and Finstock are both about a mile from the villages and Finstock is at the bottom of a steepish hill as well, so not great scope for extra numbers, I'd say, even with more trains.

Shipton, as I said in a previous post, is a potential Honeybourne Mk2, if it gets the right balance of services. The population of Shipton and adjacent Milton-under-Wychwood is greater than Honeybourne. Also Burford is much closer to Shipton than Charlbury, so would attract custom from that area too if more trains called. The problem here is access and parking. The westbound platform is currently reached through Matthews' flour mill yard and the best site for a car park, where the goods shed and yard used to be just north of the Oxford-bound platform, is occupied by a garage business.

Ascott's problem is that while it is convenient for the village itself, it is so close to Shipton it would be hard to justify lots of trains calling at both points, so maybe an extra peak stop or two here. I don't think people here would be too aggrieved if they only had a short drive to Shipton for more frequent services the rest of the day.

My view is that the "halts" should be kept open in order to provide access to the rail network for the areas that they serve. Sure , these are sparsely populated in places , but does that mean that the locals are any less deserving of a train service?

As for the appropriate level of service , it depends on who you ask. Jacobs Consultancy (see pages 120 - 122 of the following link - http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103) felt that no trains should call at these stations , but locals at Finstock felt otherwise when closure was proposed in 1994 :

(http://images4.fotopic.net/?iid=y14blx&outx=800&quality=70)

Combe , Finstock and Ascott had their train service reduced to 1 train each way on Monday - Fridays only as part of the December 2006 timetable process.

Here is a photo of Finstock station in 1983 before the platform was moved to the opposite side of the track :

(http://images4.fotopic.net/?iid=ykyekl&outx=800&quality=70)

I'm not from that area but I did look in the timetable and at least the 1 train per day in each direction for the "shacks" is during the peaks.

Yes, but it now does not go from London! And its a Thames Turbo- the platforms are too short.

In all honesty, running through to and from London has never been a big issue on that service, or not for those who regularly use the halts, who are all heading into Oxford. The franchise requirement is simply that a train calling at the halts arrives in Oxford some time after 8am and a return working leaves Oxford after 5pm. It says nothing about through running.

When the afternoon working started at Paddington, it was often an unpleasant scrum for the large numbers boarding at Oxford and trying to find seats in an already busy two-car Turbo, along with those who had ridden from London in the back unit, which was taken off at Oxford. This was why it was decided to start it at Oxford and to put a 125 on the 15.51 off London, to encourage Worcestershire passengers wanting a speedier journey to avoid the stopper.

It should also be noted that prior to December 2006 , a limited "halts" service ran on Saturdays as well.

Perhaps, a thing I could have put on the petition is this:

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S8J-Qy5gXC0&rel=1&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S8J-Qy5gXC0&rel=1&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

A Thames Turbo heading for the Cotswold Line! The only train that should have this is the "halts" train. Too frequently, long distance passengers have to spend 2-3 hours on one of these- not good!

165's are pretty poor, even compared to the humble 158.

158s are better, but less capacity.

Well, only if you count the 3+2 seating as adding capacity, have you ever tried fitting 3 people on a 3 seater?

Of course as Thames Turbo's are the Widest stock in Britain the 3+2 seating isn't as bad as that on the 150's that still have 3+2 seating.

Quite agree! I travel on a LM 150 daily, and it is uncomfortable to have 3 people in a 3 seater. 2 max!

The Thames Turbos are better than 150s in terms of 3+2 seats (also there is less gum on the seats with FGW)!

With reference to Industry Insider's suggestions, as a short term solution, why not adopt those ideas plus extend the length of the double track section in the middle. Start by redoubling Evesham to Moreton (how often do the early morning Hereford trains have to wait at Evesham) then Ascott to (say) Charlbury.

Good idea!

Or perhaps Eve to Pershore and Honeybourne.

Yes but then you have two bits of double track, so more switches and signalling and general complication. If you extend the middle double tracked section you have a platform to eventually extend double track further.

True, but a second large loop adds more capacity.

I agree that one of the problems is that the Cotswold line as with most of the GW mainline out of Paddington is now outer suburban so most trains will need to stop at most stations with double track you could have say an hourly semi fast (fast to Oxford) to and from Paddington and an hourly all stations that follows the fast from Oxford (connection from Padd) and arrives Oxford to connect with an Oxford to Paddington fast service (on the other half hour to the through fast).

However this will require  very expensive diesel units to give the necessary acceleration to provide attractive journey times. So given the increasing outer suburban nature of the Cotswold line electrification should be the long term goal. 

TO be honest: electrification is the long term aim for many GW routes. However, the line to Bristol and Plymouth will be ahead in the pecking order! The electrification of the Cotswold line should happen, but it won't for decades!!!!

I like your idea:

*hourly semi-fast:    London, Reading, Oxford, Charlbury, Kingham, Morton, Evesham, Worcester (and beyond during peaks only).
*hourly stopping:     Oxford, Hanborough, Coombe (x) or Finstock (x), Charlbury, Shipton (x), Kingham, Morton, Honeybourne, Evesham, Pershore, Worcester.

Axe Ascott (and maybe one out of Finstock and Coombe).
Peak extensions of local service to London calling: Oxford, Didcot, Reading, Slough, London; to give all stations a direct service to London.

HSTs on semi fast services. Thames Turbos on local services (except when on the peak services).

What do others think?

I think that I only signed your petition on the basis of a guarantee from you that you were not in favour of closing any of the above stations :

I understand your concerns. However, I have now thought longer about the issue and my opinions have changed slightly.

To be fair, Ascott is very close to Shipton. Axing Ascott and increasing facilities (such as car parking) and services to Shipton would be more beneficial!

Finstock and Coombe have very low passenger numbers, so axing one/replacing both with a new halt and increasing facilities and services at the station kept open/new station would be better for the communities.

I think that economies can be made that improve journey times, and improve the service and facilities at another station. As well as this, a halt with 3 trains a day (for example) is better than 2 halts with a service or two a day each. People are more likely to use it, as they know that more than one train calls. Usage would go up, facilities could be provided, car parking could be improved. Result- Honeybourne Mk 2 etc!

Finstock station would have to be demolished to make way for double track. Is reopening really viable with Coombe down the road? Again car parking could be improved at Coombe.

Besides, the petition does not involve the halts staying open or shutting, only the double track reinstatement. I do not make any comment to do with them on the petition. The only way I mention them is by saying double track would facilitate an enhanced local service for them (and an enhanced express service skipping them!).

Furthermore, at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with me! My slight change of opinion will not effect anyone.

I would like to say that I would certainly not be disappointed if they all remained open. I just think that there is only the need for half of them.

Ok, you are entitled to your opinion.

You will understand if I feel that Campaign Against New Beeching Report supporters have been duped somewhat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A29902836

Quote from the above link (written by you, in an attempt to get them to sign) :


Personally, I feel a bit let down, and I am sure that others do too.

In case you are wondering, my view can be found below :


I am entitled to my opinion as well.

As you can see from one of the photos above, proposing the closure of even (say) Finstock is likely to land you with far more opposition than you seem to think. If this then snowballs publicity-wise (as I think it would) into a "Beeching rides again" scenario, this could end up jeopardising any double-tracking plan proposed on this basis.

To give you a comparison, a year ago Network Rail proposed the closure of Denton and Reddish South stations, which have a service of 1 train per week in one direction only. Despite this, hundreds of people objected (link below.)
http://www.andrewgwynne.labour.co.uk/news?PageId=b46abd47-6168-4094-21b4-913b02fc50c6

Whilst I accept that those two stations are situated in an urban area, while the Oxfordshire "halts" are rural, it is interesting to note that the surprisingly successful campaign was led by local MP Andrew Gwynne, who quite a few forum members may not have heard of.

Question - how many forum members have heard of Finstock's local MP?

I think that you would be far better off proposing a double-tracking scheme that takes all the "halts" into account, and at least keeps them open.

Erm ... I think we all have, Lee!

Here's a clue - almost exactly in the middle of the map, eh? http://www.davidcameronmp.com/map.html

 ;D

Indeed it is, Chris  ;D

I also think that David Cameron is the type of character who would prefer to keep open all three stations mentioned by Btline (Ascott, Combe and Finstock, which are all in Cameron's constituency) as closure candidates. Example/comparison link below regarding local post office closures.
http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.2027904.0.tory_leader_backs_post_office_battle.php


You would have to say that if Cameron (probably along with the relevant Shadow Cabinet ministers) held a press photo-call at any of the potentially-doomed Oxfordshire "halts", then that would probably be the end of any closure proposal.

It is further worth noting that, as leader of the opposition, Cameron is entitled to insist on a response from Ruth Kelly at Secretary of State level, rather than just Tom Harris at ministerial level, when asking parliamentary questions.

I think this thread is getting too bogged down in the detail of how the Cotswold line might be redoubled.

Everyone seems to agree that the less single track on this important line the better.

Therefore, rather than trying to second guess any scheme that Network might come up with I suggest that the petiton organisers put forward proposed headways for services on the line.

May I suggest 10 minutes for alternate direction trains and 5 minutes for same direction trains.

I.e An Up train leaves a station on the hour (XX:00) the next Down train arrives at xx:10,
or the Up train leaves at XX:00 the next Up train at XX:05 which makes the next Down Train XX:15.

As a first step this gives you 6 tph  3 Up 3 Down in alternate directions (20 minute interval in same directioon) or  8tph 5 Up 3 Down or vice versa maximum 25 minute interval in 3 tph direction.

Perhaps the Old Worse and Worse was over generous with the provisons of stations on the line considering 8 have already shut, including Adelstrop made famous by the poem.

So maybe you are lucky having so many small station left. Considering other mainlines in the country where it's at least 20 miles between stations.

One other thought, IF the trial of ERTMS on the Cambrian Line is successful then I would suggest that the Cotswold line redoubling would be an ideal next project to test the sysetm on a busier line. Another plus point for the scheme.

I make no apologies for putting forward the case for retaining these stations, and I dont think that anyone who knows me would expect any different. I actually think there is some merit in your/btlines overall suggestion, but the stopper could be modified so that 2 out of Combe, Finstock, Ascott and Shipton are called at in one hour, and the other 2 stations called at in the next, a "skip-stop" pattern, if you like.

I also predict that any move to close any of the "halts" will fail while David Cameron is leader of the Conservative party, which could be for the next decade, maybe longer. Although some might disagree, I think that considering the political implications of rail proposals is actually a very relevant thing to do.


Fine by me. Over to you Btline.

Right.

I can see and understand that people want the halts to stay open. If I lived in Coombe or Finstock or nearer to Ascott than to Shipton, then of course I would want them to stay open. However, looking from afar...

As I said before, axing one of them would secure the remaining ones with more incentive to develop the remaining ones.


Hmmmmmmm. What has changed? As I said in my service pattern above, the local service would stop at some of the halts! Therefore encouraging more people to use them etc. etc. = they are secured!

Why should people be let down. I think that if all the halts stay as they are, this will happen:
*Coombe AND Finstock will be closed;
*Ascott will be closed in preference to Shipton;
*Shipton may stay open, but:
*Shipton's service may be AXED to 1 train a day!

Now, if Finstock was axed (e.g. during redoubling) and an additional service immediately started calling at Coombe to compensate, passenger usage would increase NOT just because of the extra Finstock passenger(s), but because people from both villages would view it as having a choice of trains etc. and the service would become slightly more convenient for them. It would no longer be: "No, I can't take the train, as the only stopper will have gone by now" but "Oh, I have missed the morning service, but I can catch the later one instead. Right I won't drive. I'll have lunch and a pint now, and then go to Coombe station to get the afternoon stopper."

Parking could be improved at Coombe as more passengers used it and, primarily MORE TRAINS COULD START CALLING AS USAGE WENT UP.

Now, Shipton could do with an additional train at the moment as it is! If Ascott were to be axed (and redoubling took place etc.) 2 more trains (at least) could start calling immediately. Then you would have the same effect as above, but even more so. The station could be improved, more parking blah.... etc.

The result would be going from:
*a situation where 4 stations get 1 train per day (2 for Shipton), with poor patronage;
to:
*a situation where 2 stations would get 3-4 trains per day, with improved usage (and not too much inconvenience- the stations are close to each other).

Please do not get me wrong. I am against Beeching style closures in principle. But, I am not against the closure of some of the lines that Beeching closed. I think that some were sensible, others were mad and have caused problems today. I also hate his "track improvements" - ie singling!

I don't think you should feel let down. I honestly feel that at least one halt could save the others if it were axed. Remember, stations can reopen.

In the long term, I feel the remaining halts (especially Shipton) would see an increase in service and no longer be "halts!" If my stopping pattern above were to applied, then Shipton and Coombe could start seeing hourly or two hourly services.

I am v sorry if you feel let down- believe me, the closure of stations is not generally good.

But I feel that in exceptional cases, there is good reason to axe stations. In all the examples of closure above, reasonable alternatives would be used. I do not think you can use the "what happens if I don't drive" argument, because I believe the halts are a way from the villages anyway.

Of course David Cameron will oppose any closure plans- he wants to get votes! If he leads a campaign to save a station, it is a win win situation. Nobody will dislike him for keeping them open (I understand that he may genuinely want them kept open - I just think that it is unlikely). For that reason, I feel that it would be better to keep politics out of this "halts" issue.

Ok, I would like to tell people:

*Don't feel let down, I want all communities to have a decent service. Hopefully, I have explained myself a little better up there!
*The petition is about the double track only. Any results of the redoubling should be handled in a separate petition!

Regards,

Btline

PS: ignoring the halts, what do people think of the various stopping patterns above?

PPS: Please do not fell let down!!!!!

 :)

Sorry, it's me again!

(http://images4.fotopic.net/?iid=y14blx&outx=800&quality=70)

Look:

"How can people use it when hardly any trains stop here???"

This applies to all the halts. Yes- frequencies need to be improved.

Do you really think that it would be worthwhile to increase frequencies at all 4 halts? I can't see it being viable. The growth will be spread out to all 4 stations. It will not be as noticeable. The services will be axed again. Axing 1/2 halts might be better.

Anyway, enough of me.

Please reply!!!!

 :)

Electrification is the future for Rail travel, with new 3rd Rail electrification now banned Under H & S except where it's an add on to existing schemes, Great Western will be Overhead electric, will be great London-Bristol, South Wales and Exeter, mighty interesting about wires to Plymouth.

Contrary to popular belief, Water is an INSULATOR, if it conducted electricity then every Power line would blow up every time it rained.

However Sea Water CONDUCTS electricity and that will cause real sparks every time the Sea was stormy at Dawlish.
Renewing the OLE every other day in the winter is not an option.

What a complete load of old cobblers.

Sea water may be slightly more conductive than pure water, but then the atmosphere isn't a perfect insulator either. Electricity will flow down whatever route it finds easiest, and in the case of OHLE that's always going to be along the wires.

Here's how I see it, Btline.

To take the rather obvious political implications of proposing the closure of stations within David Cameron's constituency out of the equation is, in my view, the wrong approach. You disagree, and that is your right.

You feel that it is the correct approach to propose closing some of the "Oxfordshire Halts." I disagree, and that is my right.

I think that anyone reading this thread can see that both sides of the argument have been thoroughly aired. I could continue to counter your points (and indeed would) but we would end up going round in circles. Wearing my Global Moderator hat, I am going to accept eightf48544 recommendation and move the debate on.

I believe he has a request for you :


Its your petition, not mine.

So Why did sea water stop the Virgin Vovagers?

Because it shorted out the Load Bank Resistors on the roof!

Look, OHE is not going to happen:

*It cannot be extended to South Wales due to Severn Tunnel- that's 2tph which will remain as HSTs.
*It cannot be extended past Exeter, due to the sea wall, that's 1tph that will remain as an HST.
*I can't see them electrifying up to Oxford, the Cherwell Valley, Cotwolds and Malverns; thats 2tph that will remain as Turbos/HSTs.
*Will they electrify the Greengord Branch- probably not! That's 2tph out! And the Night Riviera.
*What about down to Bakinstoke? Nope- another few services gone!
*They would not electrify to Newquay, so that would have to be an HST (if OHE got to Cornwall, which it wouldn't anyway).
*What about all those sidings and depots and freight terminals? Nah- let's leave them out! That's all freight still diesel!

NB: Please note the ECML scheme- hardly any branches/extensions/sidings were electrified. That is why many trains (including those to Skipton!) are HSTs. Luckily, the majority of trains would be electric anyway, so they went ahead- while cutting some through journeys! The same would happen to the GWML. Only the bare minimum would be done, so either there would be a lot of HSTs, or through journeys (eg past Exeter) would be axed!

So, they say- "Oh..... it looks like that too many trains will still be diesel- not worth it!"

We also now have more powerful diesels that can accelerate as fast as electric trains (e.g. the Voyagers- even though I hate them!).

It would also cost billions! I'll give you two words: London Olympics!

Therefore, it is not going to happen. I wish it did though! It would be excellent, and give the people (eg on the Cotswold line) the service they deserve. Brunel's excellent railway could be exploited to its full potential with 140mph running on some stretches!

OK.

1. Can you at least acknowledge that my ideas have some logic to it- remember the comment on the Finstock shelter. I know that you are against any closures- I respect that. I just came up with an idea, where I thought a closure or two would not be that bad.

I feel that some people are disappointed with some of my comments. I am not some mad axe man wishing to deprive the Cotswold villages with a rail service, just looking at different options.

2 Once again- The petition is to do with the redoubling, and the redoubling only. Yes, my description does include the "halts", or words to the effect. However, these are just words to show the reader (and the PM) what possibilities are out there.

When I first answered comments about it, I stated that "the village halts would be saved etc." I stand by this comment, and my suggestions (if they resulted in the situation I describe) does to a certain extent.

Yes, I have now changed to: Axe a couple of halts. However, I have given a reasonable justification and reasons why it could be beneficial to people, not annoying.

3 Yeah, ok, can we keep politics out of it now, I do not wish to make any more comments about this. My last comment was sort of trying to indicate this....

4 As I said before, apart from the doubling, nothing else (such as train paths) involves me. It is separate. Besides, I have already indicated a possible calling pattern which improves the halts service!!!!!


Right, to move on (do reply though)

Would others perhaps start thinking about timings (of my calling patterns)?

Thanks again,

Btline

I believe that your ideas are well-argued, even if I disagree with them. They are up on the forum for all to see, and to make their own judgement.


Noted, and again is up on the forum for all to see, and to make their own judgement.


If forum members are to be given the opportunity to accept that your ideas have some logic to them, then they must be given the same opportunity regarding mine. Politics is a key factor in many railway proposals (just ask Bristol campaigners.)

Agreeing to disagree is probably the way forward here.


I know, and have commented :



Agreed, and stated in my last post.

I would just like to add that I respect your views, but just dont agree with some of them.

Right. I won't bother replying.

No hard feelings. I am sorry! I do feel that I have hit a nerve so I will stop.

Moving on:

About the timings:

It seems like xx51 is the general path at the mo. So how about:

*Semi-fast departures from London every hour from 0551 to 2251. Calling at Reading, Oxford, Chalbury, Kingham, Morton, Evesham, Worcester Shrub Hill and Worceser Foregate Street. Extensions to Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Cowall, Ledbury and Hereford on the 1251 (Cathedrals Express) and on the 1851.

From Worcester every hour from 0510 to 2350. Same calls. Extensions from Hereford, Ledbury, Great Malvern and Malvern Link on the 1710 (Cathedrals Express) and 2350 Worceser departures.

All services operated by HSTs.

*Local departures from Oxford every hour from 0619 to 2219. Calling at Hanborough, Charlbury, Kingham, Morton, Honeybourne, Evesham, Pershore and Worcester Shrub Hill. Extensions from Didcot, Reading, Slough and London on the 0819 and 1919 Oxford Departures. Calls at "halts" on some services spread through out the day as requests, including a evening peak from Oxford.

From Worcester Shrub Hill every hour from 0540 to 1940. Same stops. Extensions to Didcot Reading, Slough and London on the 0640 and 1540 Worcester Departures. Halts as before.

All services operated by Thames Turbos (on the assumption that they accelerate better, are shorter, cope with the reduced loadings, and the fact that there are not enough HSTs).

I know this won't be perfect. It is a start. Please comment.

No hard feelings here either. Nerves intact, and look forward to reading more of your contributions, which, just as with other forum members, are genuinely valued.

Thanks!  ;)

What about the timings? I know I have not accounted for the possible timing decreases (less waiting around at Morton for example!).

Does it work?

Right, having put on some soothing music and taken a deep breath, may I bring a little local knowledge to bear on this. Apologies in advance if I go on a bit.

1. The announcement from Network Rail on what options it favours for more double track is imminent. In my professional capacity (journalist), I inquired about this last week and was told they were confident it would be in February.

2. Why are there so many stations? The Old Worse and Worse (Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton for the uninitiated, the company that built the line in the 1850s) did not open all the stations. Combe, Finstock and Wyre Halt (in the Vale of Evesham, closed in the 1960s) were opened by the GWR in the 1930s.
With the exception of Evesham, there isn't anywhere of any great size between Oxford and Worcester, so the OWW and the GWR aimed to serve as many of the small towns and villages as they could. That so many survived (or later reopened in the case of Honeybourne) is down to the fact that BR's closure proposals in the early 1970s were consistently rejected by the Ministry of Transport, probably because many journeys the line makes possible take longer by road and many of those roads were and still are unsuitable for buses.
At one point I think they tried to close every intermediate station except Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh. Astonishing when you look at traffic levels today at Charlbury (see near start of this thread), for example, but there it is. Also bear in mind that the (almost) all trains through to and from London service is a relatively recent development, from 1993. Most trains from the end of steam until then were two or three car DMUs operating all-stations stoppers (plus halts in the peak), with the pairs of Hereford peak trains and the odd midday London-Malvern/Worcester as the only express-type services. No-one really got too exercised about express v all-stations arguments, as most of the day there was only the stopper and you had to change at Oxford.

3. Halts. Should they stay or go? Some of what has been said betrays a lack of knowledge of local geography. Combe and Finstock may look close on a map, but no-one would travel from one place to the other to get a train. The roads are awful and the River Evenlode is in the way. The alternatives are Charlbury for Finstock passengers and Hanborough for Combe. Finstock village and the Wychwood villages are linked much of the day with Charlbury station by a taxibus that connects with the trains. As for car parking at Combe and Finstock, come off it. The first is perched on an embankment, the other in a cutting at the bottom of a valley, both sites which cost the GWR nothing to build on. Back in December, I wrote the following on the halts. Nothing has happened to change my mind. There is a loyal, but small peak trade and that's it.


4. Suggested semi-fast/stopping trains service. Sorry, but outside the peaks, there just isn't the traffic on offer to justify anything like this level of service.

It is a longstanding goal of the CLPG (and every major council along the line from Oxford to Hereford, through the Cotswold and Malverns Transport Partnership) to get a regular hourly interval off-peak service to and from London, for the precise reason that this is a realistic, sustainable frequency. In the peaks the consensus is that there should be a 30-minute interval in the direction of the main flows, towards Oxford and London in the morning and in the other direction late afternoon and early evening. And a two-car Turbo (to operate the morning halts train into Oxford) is plenty of capacity for the last train of the day from London and Oxford to Worcester at the moment.

We also seem to be returning to the realms of penalising Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore. You seem to be suggesting that Turbos and changing at Oxford off-peak are fine for them - and presumably Chipping Campden, because more double track being laid would put this reopening proposal back on the agenda at Gloucestershire County Council. As I have said before, the trains stop at these places (and with increasing frequency in recent years) because people use them, and because they ease pressure elsewhere - eg at Evesham, where car park expansion is impossible, as all the adjacent former railway land has been sold off, never mind negotiating the town's dodgy road system. These three are Parkway stations for wider areas, as much as serving the places they are named after.

It may not be gee-whizz and exciting, but what I would like to see off-peak is a boring, reliable Swiss-style regular interval service, every hour, calling at Hanborough, Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton-in-Marsh, Evesham and Pershore. And maybe a two-hourly interval at Shipton and see how traffic develops and something similar at Chipping Campden if that is reopened, with some Honeybourne stops dropped to keep timings fairly consistent.

In the peak, something similar to today's service levels would make sense (with the odd train skipping Honeybourne or Hanborough, plus another London-bound train calling at Shipton), though reshuffled to get as near to a regular 30-minute interval between trains as possible. The halts train inevitably throws a spanner in the works, but that can't be helped and a two-car Turbo is still pretty fleet of foot, happily thrashing along Kingham-Moreton at 90mph most of the way. Double track would also allow a welcome extra service or two into Worcester in the morning peak from the Vale of Evesham stations.

In the morning an extra southbound service that reaches Oxford at about 9.30 (London 10.30) would be popular, while in the afternoon an extra train to even out the gaps between the 16.49, 17.31 and 18.16 from Oxford would be welcome, along with the 17.51 ex-London going back to leaving Oxford at 18.45-ish, giving a 30-minute interval between the two Hereford trains.

After all that we have endured on the Cotswold Line in the past few years in terms of unreliability, hours of disruption triggered by one late-running train and all the rest, what this line and its passengers need is a period of stability and reliability, where people know that the train will turn up at the same time every hour, all day, every day, or half-hourly in the peaks.

If there is more double track, and some boring reliablity can be achieved and passenger numbers stabilise and start to grow again, by all means look at running more trains, but let's get the basics right first.

I understand where you are coming from, willc. I am aware of the "halts" taxibus services, but part of what CANBER does is to suggest options as to how services to such stations could be improved, which is why I suggested the (slight) alteration to btlines (and other forum members) service pattern that I did.

Although I feel that there may be scope for an experimental daytime "halts" train service, if the locals said that they wanted something different from these suggestions then their view would obviously have to be respected.

Btline and I have had a behind the scenes chat, and both would like this topic locked if possible, as we feel that we have reached a "natural conclusion." Personally, I feel that the issues have been thoroughly aired, and willc's "local knowledge" post is a good way to end.

As I have posted extensively, perhaps one of the other moderators/admin could do this?

This is getting a bit heated ... several reports in my inbox and it seems at a quick glance the subjects have been well aired.   I'm away - so locking the topic for now - initially as a precautionary measure until I can review.