Great Western Coffee Shop

An Arup report for NR published today by the Rail Regulator states it has serious concerns over the cost of the redoubling. Originally estimated at ^55m NR have already revised its estimate to ^74m, but Arup believe the cost could be ^105m. This report was issued around the time of the announcement, so hopefully it won't have any impact on the scheme.

Also of note, it states that NR are undergoing a fast track GRIP 1-3 process in 30 days. Wow!

What is a fast track GRIP?

GRIP is Guide to Railway Investment Projects, which has the stages from 1 (basic aim of project) to 8 (completion).

For details, see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4171.aspx (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4171.aspx)

The epic Arup document is online at

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/pr08-arupenh-040608.pdf (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/pr08-arupenh-040608.pdf)

 - relevant bit is pages 99-102, also mentioning Swindon-Kemble.

I was slightly dubious about NR's ^50m-plus figure anyway, since one of their people told me it was more like ^74m to ^92m the day they unveiled the proposals. How you square the ORR's ^40 million-odd estimate in their response to the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan with what their own consultants appear to be telling them is an interesting one. Did they by any chance just take Network Rail's initial figure and knock a bit off?

From what Arup say, it appears they and Network Rail are still trying to get a handle on exactly what work is involved, which may explain much of the discrepancy.

But it doesn't inspire confidence in Arup's figures when their diagram omits Shipton station and they put in things like the following: "Provide a turn back facility in the London direction at Moreton-in-Marsh to allow trains to terminate and turn back to Oxford" which suggests they haven't even looked at a track diagram, never mind visited Moreton, where they would find just such a facility already exists, able to handle an 2+8 HST, which is used every morning by the first train of the day to London - unless someone wants to move the reversing point from dead-straight track south of the station on to the sharp curve to the north, which would seem a pointless piece of expenditure if that is the idea.

And bear in mind the cost of redoubling work varied wildly on the Chiltern Line. The first stage from Princes Risborough to Bicester came in at ^1m a mile but Bicester to Aynho was ^8m a mile in 2002, which would put 20 miles of the Cotswold Line up at ^160m!

An interesting footnote is that the diagram of revised track layouts includes "passive provision" at Honeybourne for GWR steam trains from Broadway to use the reverse face of the reopened island platform.

I find the whole business case and project costs very worrying.

How on earth do they derive a business case without accurate costings. As Willc points out they can't even have done a survey to determine exactly what they want.

As I observed in a previous thread  'Much of the business case would be based on the amount of delay (and payments made by Network Rail to train operating companies (TOCs) as a result of it) that would be saved. 

If that is the case and it is not based on an increase in either passenger or even freight traffic then the quickest way to reduce the amount of delay and subsequent penalty charges is to pad the timetables.

If they see the penalty charges tumble since the latest timetable was introduced what will be the incentive to justify the investment. Particularly if the costs are spiraling before it's even approved?

What is your take on the situation Willc?

Thanks for posting that link, Will. Certainly there's plenty of interesting reading in there!

I am assuming by the above turn-back quote that they are proposing a 'proper' turn-back facility, i.e. either a proper starting signal at the South end of the down platform, or a cross-over from the down main line into the up platform. That would allow a train to arrive, unload, load and depart with no additional shunt moves. At the moment, a train terminating from the Oxford direction, that wants to go back towards Oxford, either has to collect a token for the Evesham section and go onto the single line before changing ends and returning back to the opposite platform (that's what happens to the first London train of the day you mention), or it has to shunt in the London direction onto the up main and then return to the up platform - that involves no less than three changing of ends for the driver, which given the mobilisation time for a HST is not practicable.

Yes, I agree that's a lot of shunting, but a stop board for an HST to shunt south of the station, using the up line, was put in place earlier this year.

Given that everything stops at Moreton anyway, so is running at slow speed, maybe they could just find a secondhand turnout from somewhere to go in the up line at the north end and connect that to the existing point where the single line now starts to create a suitable crossover in the double track, rather than shelling out on a brand-new one. I believe the signal box has several spare levers which could be brought back into use.

Indeed, though I think that the easiest option would be to provide a semaphore home signal at the London end of the down platform which could utilise one of the redundant levers. Then the current 15mph crossover outside the signalbox could be used for passenger carrying trains. An adequate (and cost effective) improvement given the likely usage it would get of one scheduled train per day and at times of engineering work. If it was installed early on in the Cotswold Line project (which I sincerely hope doesn't get delayed thanks to these costing revelations), then it could be used when the Moreton-Evesham section is closed for Double-Tracking.

This would be the most elegant solution, I agree, though it's a pretty tight squeeze to fit an HST into the space between the crossover and the starting signal at the Evesham end, so may have implications for where you site a reversing signal, especially as there is a down signal between the tracks already to give drivers a view of it under the London Road bridge.

Also, if there were to be more trains turning back at Moreton at other times of the day - we had Saturday afternoon turnbacks up until a couple of years ago - it may be as well to have the facility to shunt across to the other platform with one change of ends anyway, to keep the up line clear.

I would have thought the ability to put up to four trains an hour along the line should make it an attractive proposition for CrossCountry or freight (container clearances permitting) diversions in future when the Banbury route is closed, as BR InterCity used to do in the early 1990s before extra Cotwold Line services ate up spare capacity.

Willc article - See http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.2392954.0.rail_work_could_cost_double.php

Chris, wrong line...

Thanks, Tom: that's what happens with my trying to do more than one thing at once!  ;)

And now my post makes no sense.  >:( ;D ;D :P

No, to be fair to Tom, I posted something about redoubling, but on a completely different line: see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3266 for the correct version!

These pictures show what can be involved in re-doubling a railway. It puzzles me slightly as to the extent of the heavy engineering, as the line was originally double track. So quite why cuttings need widening and bridges demolishing I'm not sure (suppose electrification may be the reason for the bridges).


http://www.airdriebathgateraillink.co.uk/project/gallery/

Thanks for the link

The degree of widening does seem rather unnecessary - but perhaps the extra width is needed to accommodate the cycle path next to double track (see link on Airdrie - Bathgate web page) ?

It's possibly not surprising that heavy engineering work is needed especialy in cuttings. The Old Worse and Worse was a bit of fly by night concern and the line was not over engineered, certainly not to Brunel standards. Probably what's happened since singling is that the  cutting sides further from the tack have been allowed to consolidate (slip) and encroach onto the old trackbed.

Chiltern found similar problems when doubling from Risborough to Anhyo particularly in cuttings even though that line was of much later construction.

I can't however offer an explanation for the need to rebuild bridges except that the permanent way is the least permanent part of the railway.