Great Western Coffee Shop

Meanwhile though, it's generally considered that the Evergreen 3 main line work has slipped until at least May 2011, so that does give a bit of a breathing space for the Chiltern 172s.

I'd be surprised if they weren't planned to be built ahead of LM's units though - reasoning being that from Bombardier's point of view, it would be better to build the entire LO/Chiltern batches together, and then the LM order, which is, I believe, all gangwayed units?

Paul

_{Subject heading edited to reflect the splitting off of this topic from the original discussion on FGW 150/1 units. i_b}

Possibly, as Chitern have only ordered 4 units.

A lot of the EVergreen 3 work will be complete by December - connection to Moor Street included - so Moor Street terminators will feature in the Dec10 TT. The Aynho Juntion crossover and, I think, Northolt Junction layout will be done in 2011, and the full new TT will come in for May 2011 - with the use of more loco & coaches to free up 172 cover.

Read a report that the Northolt Jn alterations have just this week been approved by the local planners in Hillingdon, and work is expected to start now and take 'about 8 months'; so March 11 at the earliest?  I think that must be the key that unlocks the main line speed increases towards London?

No one can understand why they needed Planning permission, not even those at Chiltern & Network Rail. But legal opinion was that they did.....

Probs because they'll be extra trains running on higher levels, resulting in more sight, light and noise pollution for local residents. And the trains will be going at 100 mph (or near that).

I hope they quadruple track the area between the junction and West Ruslip (3 tracks at the mo) so that there is a big enough loop for the stoppers to be overtaken by the expresses (plus a margin for some delays)

I also really wish they'd put back in the fast lines at Gerrards Cross and Beconsfield etc; I was stuck behind a stopper once all the way to Princes Risborough - could have overtaken it if BR hadn't ripped up the loop lines. (of course, the person really responsible was the bright spark at Marylebone signal box who let a stopper out of just before several expresses!)

Talking of a diff junction: Does anybody know whether the flyover at Aynho will be retained for flexibility? I'm assuming that this junction's remodelling will have to start soon - quite a large project!

Aynho is in for January start, I understand....

I'm also hearing rumours of a weeks blockade too....

That'll just be to connect both ends up, I suppose. Why a week? :o

They get the effect of a four track railway for overtaking purposes, because the existing down main track will become a down loop including the platform at South Ruislip, and the existing Up Loop through West Ruislip already provides a platform that allows up trains to be overtaken there. 


Is that based on a misleading Rail magazine report that a 'crossover would be provided' at Aynho?

AFAICT from discussions elsewhere the flyover remains the normal route, however there is also a new crossover being put in the DCL for extra flexibility (for 7 day railway single track working I believe). There was no sign of anything in that Chiltern track access application (that listed all the work sites) to suggest that the flyover route wouldn't be used.

Paul

I've read that a new 100 mph down line will be plonked next to the up line. The flyover route has a severe speed restriction, and Chiltern want/need as much 100 mph as poss.

Not according to the track access application:  (73rd SA)


Paul

Ok, but I wouldn't want to go over that flyover at 90ish mph!

I can see what you mean but at the same time I don't think the flyover itself seems to be the main limiting factor in the area, having looked up the speed details. In NR's public online sectional appendix, (which is an April 09 snapshot unfortunately) there are some indications that the main reason for slowing down is the junction point work and their approach.  In fact, trains travelling in the down direction on the reversible up line have exactly the same speed restrictions. It gets even worse for trains that can't run at sprinter speeds, because the down direction limit is then 25 mph on both lines.  In the up direction the non-sprinter speed is 35 mph up the gradient from the junction, the down line isn't bidirectionally signalled as far as I can tell.

What all that suggests is that the problems might be to do with with the embankment earthworks. It would be interesting to hear from someone on the Evergreen project!

Paul

Eh? It's not going anywhere. They're just putting in a flat crossover to the North of the junction....

Rail is often misleading, but not as often as Mordern Railways.....sometimes I get the impression that rail industry journos often know not of what they speak, and just (mis-)interpret press releases.....rather than talk to those on the ground.

Where was that? The misleading 'RAIL' article again?
Must learn not to accept ALL rail journos output as gospel....

To build out Bicester North up platform & straighten the kinks out of the up line, while connecting up the new down line at Northolt and alter the Neasden points so the leading line is Mainlline....

Problem is this particular article in Rail (Issue 643 page 50) wasn't just slightly wrong.
Regarding 'remodelling Aynho Junction' it actually reads:

'Here the 50mph flyover will be replaced with a flat junction in the down direction...'

How they get to that, given the stuff in the track access application, and on the Evergreen 3 site, I'm not sure...

Paul

The early work has started there, with lineside equipment moved, and diggers creating a shallow trench where the new Up line will go.  Lengths of track have been dropped ready to lay it shortly.  Bicester North could have been made into a proper passing point for southbound trains of course, had this track been laid and the old Up platform line left in situ for trains that are stopping at Bicester North.  That plan would not have incurred the extra cost of rebuilding the platform, footbridge and lifts. I'm sure there's a reason why they chose to rebuild the platform, but on the face of it, it seems a little strange.

I am surprised they are not installing more passing points. Yes - they wouldn't be used in normal service, but next time a tree falls on the tracks near Harrow, screwing up the whole service, being able to hold a stopper at Beconsfield for 15 mins to let some expresses through would be useful!

Interesting comment about passing points, when you think that when the GC/GW joint was built with its GC links to Marylebone and Grendon Underwood Junction  and and GW links to OO and Aynho. there were around 11 passing places  from OO to Aynho.

Another example of how much capacity has been taken out of the railway, without closing the line. 

An end to the confusion?  The latest RAIL magazine talks of a new 'Down' line being provided next to the 'Up' line at Aynho Junction with a speed of 90mph, but it states that the current down line over the flyover with its 40mph limit will remain.  So, assuming that's right, there'll be an additional overtaking place as slow trains can be put into this flyover 'loop' if necessary whilst a fast train speeds past on the new 'Up' line, and also if a fast train would otherwise conflict with a train on the 'Up' line heading towards Oxford it could also be routed via the loop with minimal delay and no conflicts - similar to the revised layout at Northolt Junction. 

Seems quite a neat solution and proves our suspicions that the track curvature after the flyover would prevent the increase in speeds quoted!

Sounds more like Rail gradually back pedalling to me I'm afraid. 

I can't see any advantage to introducing a fast flat junction and leaving the flyover at 40 mph, given the traffic levels on the Banbury - Oxford route.

Do Rail make any attempt to explain why they are reporting something completely different to the detail published in the track access application?

Paul

The Signalling Scheme Sketch I have seen has the Aynho Junction Up Line turnout speed as 95mph and the Down Line turnout speed as 85mph.

That basically confirms what I copied from the track access application, in post #10 of the thread ^^^.

I'm still assuming that the 85 mph turnout is from the down flyover route - and that's what really needs confirmation if you still had access to the drawing...  ;)

If it really was a new down line parallel to the up line surely they'd also be mentioning a high speed crossing, or the modern equivalent, ie a pair of turnouts providing a route across the up line.  [But if this was being installed there'd be no point in upgrading the existing trailing crossover, IYSWIM.]

As it stands the TAA only mentions one new facing 50 mph crossover, and the existing trailing crossover being upgraded from 15 to 50 mph.

Paul

The existing flyover Down Line is retained.  The repositioned Up to Down trailing crossover will be 50mph (in the Down Direction).  The new Up to Down facing crossover speed is unfortunately not shown on the plan I have seen but the Up direction protecting signal (BS104) has flashing aspects in rear on repeater signals BS104R and BS104RR (the latter being a new Outer repeater signal) therfore it is safe to assume that the turnout speed will be significantly high.

Gerrards Cross would require a great deal of work to put the track back to it's pre 1990 layout. Beaconsfield would be easier but Chiltern have instead decided to reinstate the 'Up' though line at Princes Risborough.

The new Through line at Princes Risborough is going to be bi-directional.

That's news to me. The Network Rail Supplemental Agreement refers to a new 'Up' through line.

Construct new up through up line on existing formation at Princes Risborough station, Current up
main at station becomes up platform loop. Install 40 mph facing crossover north of station;
Line speed to be raised to 85 mph on both main lines through station, rising in stages to 100 mph
either side;
Amend signalling to suit revised speed and retain 3 minute headway south of station; some additional signals to be added north of station to reduce current 5 minute headway to 3 minute headway where useful;


Perhaps someone can confirm.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2009/2009.10.27%20chiltern%20railways%2073rd%20supplemental%20agreement%20-%20consultation%20closed%2023%20november%202009/form%2022%2073rd%20for%20eg3.pdf

What is suggested isn't that odd, the new line could still be bidirectionally signalled even though the track geometry is designed to make its primary use the up through line, ie the newly named 'up through' is the straight ahead route through the S&C at full line speed, and the up platform loop requires the much reduced speed. 

As far as an aerial view of the existing layout shows there will still be crossovers either side of the station (one is quite a way south) to allow a down train to get onto the up through.  The main difference is that in the up direction, a platformed train can be passed at line speed, so normally timetabled overtaking would be practical, in the down direction it would just add another option to increase operational flexibility during perturbations?

Paul

Paul is probably right.  I'd be surprised if the through line wasn't bi-directional purely because the current Up line already is and so the crossovers (or their replacements) would allow the move to take place, so it would be silly not to include the signalling for it.

All three lines in the station will be reversibly signalled but the Down Main will only be for Up terminating trains to the platform (However, trains will be able to shunt out from there to a 'Limit of Shunt' signal on the Down Main approaching from the South).  The use of the terminology is only for line identification purposes and is used to define the predominate direction of traffic.  This is irrelevant for operational and signalling purposes.

If I get some time I will do a sketch of the new layout and signalling.

Look forward to seeing it.  :)

Meanwhile Chiltern are consulting on their December 2010 timetable by which time the new platforms at Birmingham Moor Street will be in use.  Fastest journey from Marylebone to Moor Street appears to be 109 minutes under this timetable (the 16:00).

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/timetable-consultation-proposed-december-2010-timetable

Bicester North remodelling to be completed by Christmas:

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/8392455.New_track_laid/

Bicester North's repositioned platform is now open, barely two months after work started.  Quick work!  Here's some comparison images I took from 19th August and 6th October - same time of day, weather rather different!

From the footbridge looking towards London (4x zoom):
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/5062461850_8bb74aab0f_b.jpg)

From the footbridge looking towards London (no zoom):
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/5061850907_06abd45cee_b.jpg)

From the footbridge looking towards Banbury:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/5061850121_50f011728b_b.jpg)

From the south end of the down platform looking towards Banbury:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5061849407_6e2de03c47_b.jpg)

As you can see, the new platform and track alignment have been completed, with work still taking place to the old platform.  Final bits and bobs need to still be done including the fitment of DOO monitors/mirrors as all trains on the new platform are currently being dispatched by a member of staff on the platform.

Plenty of track has been dropped at Princes Risborough ready for the reinstatement of the through line there.

Do we know exactly what is going to happen behind the new platform?

I know from previous discussion there is no likelihood of a bay, but let's hope they don't just leave the sort of half baked job they did at Kensington Olympia southbound, where there is just a gap one track wide and then a ruined platform...

Paul

I'll return with my camera in a month or so!

Yes - they're backfilling to extend the up platform out to the new track alignment.

The infill will be easily removable should they ever want to reinstate a turnback bay.

Major engineering works on Friday 5th November with West Midlands and Banbury trains diverted to Didcot Parkway

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/content/friday-5-november-important-travel-news

Thanks for posting, Chafford1!  :)

This is also being discussed at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7789.0

CfN.  ;)

I thought High Wycombe station forecourt looked like a bit of a building site when I passed by there the other day, and it turns out they're demolishing a couple of disused building and completely rebuilding the forecourt to allow buses to call in at the station (at the moment they stop on the busy and steep road outside).  Also, a multi-storey car park (a Condek one similar to Bicester North, Haddenham, and Beaconsfield I presume), is being built to increase the parking capacity from 400 to 650 spaces by next March.  Perfect timing for the May full launch of the Mainline 3 timetable.  Well done (again) Chiltern!

More details: http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/high-wycombe-car-park-and-interchange-project (http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/high-wycombe-car-park-and-interchange-project) and http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/high-wycombe-train-station-all-set-interchange-project (http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/high-wycombe-train-station-all-set-interchange-project)

Yes, they are spending their franchise commitment....it wasn't 'voluntarily' invested.

Effectively, it's tax-payers money - the money spent in buying the franchise.

And as such another glowing endorsement of their unique franchise model.

Oh completely agree there! This was the base of my submission to the DfT consultation on franchising, which has just closed.

Geoff Plumb has been hanging around Princes Risborough Station over the past few days. His photos showing the reinstatement of the up through line are here:

http://geoff-plumb.fotopic.net/p67997270.html


http://geoff-plumb.fotopic.net/p67997269.html

The next Chiltern weekday blockade between Bicester North and High Wycombe is set for Friday. March 11. Alternative routing and other arrangements appear to be much the same as last November.

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/content/friday-11-march-important-travel-news

There will then be what are simply described at the moment as "major changes" from Sunday, May 1, to Sunday, May 8.

You sure?....The last Chiltern announcement I saw had a two week closure from April 22....

Ah, missed that first week but is it really necessary to have to trawl the entire calendar of engineering work to find this out?

They don't even mention it on the news notice about March 11 and there's nothing on the Mainline webpages, even though there is a section headed 'ongoing (ugh!) schedule for 2011' on the 'latest progress' page. Your average passenger might like to know about two weeks of disruption, even if it is timed to coincide with Easter school holidays and a certain wedding.

There are large acrylic posters up at all Chiltern stations that mention it....

So why not the equivalent on the website as well?

IF you go to those dates on their works calendar, it's there.

I'm with Will on this one.  I think any major changes to weekday schedules should be prominently displayed on the website home page - even if it's just a prominent warning and a 'check back later for more details message'.  Chiltern's website is not very well laid out in that respect, when compared with, for example, FGW's.

Agree about their layout, BUT it is late April. Bit soon for a front page splash....

Those planning that far ahead would expect to check within the site, I think. I certainly do.

In 2009, FGW did a publicity blitz very early in the year about the Cotswold Line closures, presumably to help nudge people to time their summer holidays to coincide with the blockade.

And people who aren't tied in to school holidays might well opt for a fortnight off to avoid the Chiltern blockade (plus that wedding and all the messed-up weeks around that time due to bank holidays). Some may well have noticed the posters at stations but it has become apparent to me that others pass by posters time and time again without taking in what they say. The more ways you can get the message over as early as possible, the better. FGW's efforts over the Reading closure were a pretty good example of how to do it, I'd say.

Yup - Even they left Reading off the FGW front opage until a month before....and the upcoming blockade on the Cotswolds is nowhere to be obviously seen either....

First Chiltern Class 172 had a day out from Derby at Wembley depot, picture here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36593372@N04/5453933190/

Good job they now won't be needed until late summer. 

http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/chiltern-mainline-announcement-0 (http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/chiltern-mainline-announcement-0)

As I feared, Chiltern were trying to do too much in too short a time!

Although disappointing, this is undoubtedly the right move. I always thought they'd be cutting it fine! The reduction of weekend closures is most welcome as it is a major annoyance to leisure travellers.

They need to decide on March 11 closure & confietrm either way.

Geoff Plumb has uploaded some new pics of the work at Princes Risborough - I suggest the three new down signals (and feathers) on the gantry confirm that the up main through line is after all the debate fully signalled for down movements:

http://plumbloco.smugmug.com/Trains/July2011/17899092_5TpMcd#P-1-9 (http://plumbloco.smugmug.com/Trains/July2011/17899092_5TpMcd#P-1-9)

(9th picture onwards)

I though it best to stick to the existing thread, although it's a few months old now...

Paul

Nope, don't agree.

This Photo (http://plumbloco.smugmug.com/Trains/July2011/17899092_5TpMcd#1375774051_df2VRv9-A-LB) clearly shows just signal heads on that gantry - that'll be for the platform lines. THere would be a third up there if the UP through was reversible (and it wouldn't be called the 'Up through line' either.

Try pictures 9, 12 or 13 though, from the up platform point of view. 

AFAICS they show that the Down line has a two aperture four aspect LED main running signal, with no feather, so one main route. (There's almost certainly a position light to the left but bagged over.)
The Up Through line has a single aperture LED three aspect main signal and a position 1 feather to the down main, so the main route is to the up reversible line.
The Up platform line has a single aperture LED three aspect signal, a position 1 feather as before, and a position 4 feather for the Aylesbury branch.

Specifically picture 9.  The bag over the down line signal head is the same size as a conventional three aspect head - with LED signals this is required for the double yellow spacing, but the other two out of use signals are both small in comparison as they only need the one aperture.

Also, as pointed out in post #29 by SandTEngineer:

"The use of the terminology [eg Up through] is only for line identification purposes and is used to define the predominate direction of traffic.  This is irrelevant for operational and signalling purposes."

Paul
 

Well, I'm only telling you what the Chiltern Engineering team are (still) telling me.

And the fact that the layout at the London end....there's no direct connection from the down line to the through line - you go via the up line.

We could definitely do with the detailed drawings like those posted for the Aynho Jn area.  But it seems highly unlikely to me that they'd go to the trouble of fitting that middle signal (of the three on the gantry) if it couldn't be reached from the south.

Paul

I've got the drawings for the whole line, but I tried a scan & it was too large to post here.

An interesting one as, I'd agree with Paul, the gantry is clearly fitted with three signal heads which at a guess would do the movements he describes.  But you'd have thought the Chiltern Engineering team would know what was happening...

Well you'd certainly expect them to know all about the moves necessary to run their intended timetable... 

'Pat O'Neill', posting in uk.railway a few days ago and quoting from the relevant Yellow Peril, reckons the lines are definitely

"Down Main - Down direction
Up Main- Bi-directional
Up Princes Risborough Loop- Bi-directional"

Can you post a link to the ukr thread please? Ta!

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/browse_frm/thread/7eaa416348545c06/ace345e3ab94bf5e?hl=en&q=uk.railway:+princes+risborough

Only the three posts though.

'Jack Taylor' and I have also noted the new gantry mounted signals in the other thread started on Jun 2nd, about the Evergreen 3 drawings in Modern Rail:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/browse_frm/thread/c2a35a1d7d052530?hl=en&scoring=d&q=uk.railway%3A+diagrams+of+the+track+layouts+for+evergreen+3&

Not completely sure about those google links, I normally use a newsreader...

Thanks - I'll make yet more enquiries....and will see Network Rail Directors tomorrow morning, so will check with them too.

So what's the plan with Aynho's flyover? I travelled through it last week and there is no sign of them coping Northolt with a new Down Fast parallel to the Up. The work looks almost over and yet my down train had to slow right down over the junction.

Wasn't the plan to get the speed up to (or as near to) 100?

What's the plan with Neasden Junction? Havn't been that way much - trains are being diverted to Paddington. Such a problem, crowds of people arriving on the Northern platforms, no idea where they are!

Can't wait to travel on the new 6.07pm departure from Marylebone to Kidderminster - only stops seven times and takes 2 hrs 20 mins! Now there's a company that understands the need for an express! Passenger numbers will soar, and commuters and leisure travellers - no off peak restrictions - will target that train (which will be loco hauled) to come home.

Shame FGW won't do something similar on the Cotswold line! Even if they did, you'd need an Anytime ticket and it would probably be a Turbo half the time. Don't they understand that marketing a 2 hour express would cause both business and leisure travellers so come back to the railway? You never know, if FGW got their act together, they would no longer cart around fresh air in their HSTs!

There never was a plan for a new down line at Aynho.  The line speed increase to 85 mph (down) and 90 mph (up) is being achieved solely by renewing the junction.  We had a long debate about this in another thread, which culminated in the 'yellow peril' for the track improvements being posted by IndustryInsider, in post #54 here:  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8413.45

Paul

I doubt any trains leaving Paddington at 6.07pm are carting around any fresh air...

On North Cotswolds services from Paddington you can use SVR (Off Peak Return) if travelling Hanborough and beyond so no need for Anytime. (won't mention 1st class as Chiltern don't have it)
17:22, 17:50, 18:22 and 19:22 are all booked as HST.

Not sure when you last travelled on FGW but trains leave Paddington in the peak particularly busy.

Obviously I'm not talking about peak trains when I talk about fresh air! My point is that if passenger numbers are increased, FGW will no longer cart around fresh air in their HSTs the rest of the time.

Not sure what your 1st class point is... it'll just say that Chiltern 168 standard class is better than FGW 166 1st class.

The Cotswold line is always the 1st line to have HSTs pulled. I've travelled up and down a few times recently all on booked HST services. All trains turned up as Turbos. In fact, I have not seen an HST on the Cotswold for ages.

My 1st class point is that in evening peak out of Paddington - First Off Peak tickets aren't valid.

There's a simple reason for that. When the poo is hitting the large spinning object apropos HST availability, that's the only place that FGW's controllers can substitute Turbo vice HST.

Put yourself in their position: do you cancel a Bristol/Cardiff/Swansea/WoE service for want of an HST or do you step a Cotswold HST up to cover the other diagram (where it may stand a fighting chance of getting to 125 occasionally  :-X) and form a Cotswold service from Turbo stock. It's an obvious choice when you take a step back and look at things dispassionately. Certainly not an ideal situation, but "across the board" inconvenience is minimized by avoiding any cancellation and substituting the Turbo.

Hopefully when/if the 180s find their way back the situation may be alleviated.

After months of sitting on top of the track in the Aynho Up Goods Loop, the 'Down' direction crossover has only just been installed, and a 30/50 speed restriction is in place as usual when a new crossing or track is installed.  The speed will then be 85mph.

The 'Up' direction crossover was installed months ago and the speed is now 90mph in that direction.

The new 40mph crossovers north of Aynho junction have still to be completed. The one allowing movements from the Up Main to the Down Bicester line has yet to receive its connection on the Up Main bit - and there's no sign of it on site ready to be installed either - despite the signalling being in place for it.

Neasden is being reconfigured so that MainLine is 'straight on', and the Met is a 'right turn', the opposite of what's now.
Chiltern do need a staff member on that PLatform 14 @ PAD, I agree.


Don't you think that all the Leisure travellers will nick the seats from the peak passengers then? Because I do. The train isn't going to be long enough. They've also just announced a staggering 51.5% in the off-peak return fare - from ^33 to ^50 wef 4 September & the new TT....

That might reduce the Leisure cram in school holidays!

...and of course the 40 mph crossovers aren't really needed for normal day to day operations, so there's every likelihood that their absence won't actually prevent Chiltern/Network Rail declaring that the project is complete.

BTW do you have the yellow peril drawings for Princes Risborough yet?

Paul 

I do.....and they differ from those Chiltern provided me previously - so a sort of apology is necessary. I was mis-informed.

NR have indeed made that through line bi-di - but with a 25mph speed limit, it isn't going to get much use - using it will block the up line out of Risborough too (there's no ditrect connection from down main to through line)

Subsequent discussion on the new fares structure for Chiltern has been split off into a new topic in Fare's Fair:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9286.msg95442#msg95442

Good idea -sorry to complicate matters when you were splitting by posting again!

Well, Phase 1 of Evergreen 3, or Chiltern Mainline as they have christened it, commencing with their new timetable tomorrow.  Some very impressive schedules and I'll be taking a trip on one of the 'Silver' trains (i.e. loco-hauled) when I get the chance from Birmingham Moor Street to Marylebone. 

I hope they've managed to get rid of all the Temporary Speed Restrictions in force since the completion of the upgrade work last weekend, or the trains haven't got a hope in hell of doing Banbury to Marylebone all day in just 52 minutes, or Marylebone to Warwick Parkway in just 1 hour 09 mins!  I will also be keeping a keen eye on how much their always impressive punctuality figures drop as a result of these timings. 

It would be nice if regular travellers (ChrisB, Btline?) on the route can keep us updated with how the trains are loading and performing?

Can do. On the press launch run tomorrow.

Hope they've solved the signalling problems thry had all last week in the beaconsfield area! Also on the 0540 from Warwick Pway on Monday

I'll report back in a couple of days!! Which train is the press launch? Is it a public one? I'm not going to bother with the business zone. At 1hr 15 from Warwick - Chiltern are going to extend their catchment area!

Are all the TSRs off now? I hope they are by Monday. Perhaps someone with twitter could ask them...?

Chiltern have AXED dozens of stops - so many I'm foaming at the mouth! Shame we still have to stop at Birmingham...

It does seem so south of Banbury at least. Haven't ventured north for several days now.

Disgruntlement at those cut stops from those affected, especially in the peaks though....

There's a piece in the Bucks Free Press about Chiltern's new service at their local stations and I think it's safe to say folks aren't happy.

I tried (and failed for some reason - copy 'n pasting a url on an iphone doesn't seem to work very well), but go to their site & search for Chiltern.

I'll post the link when next at a PC. meanwhile it states at the end of said article that Chiltern are delaying their January increases to March 2012.

Why can they run the fastest trains to HW in the evening but not in the morning? Is it because the morning peak is less spread out? Perhaps they'll eventually 4 track the Ruslips and add in loops at Gerrards Cross and Beconsfield to help things.

I just hope the line speeds are ready in time, otherwise it'll be chaos!

Stopping patterns are different, possibly for the reasons you gave. Also, thr Ruislip loop is in a different place on the down.

Thanks, ChrisB: the particular link you tried to include was this one, I think: http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/9230383._Not_all_aspirations_met__for_new_timetable__rail_firm_admits/

Four tracking through the Ruislips gives no significant advantages over the current provision, unless they ever needed to overtake more than one service in the same direction at once at that location.  The functionality provided is of passing loops in both directions - the fact that the loops are at two different stations is pretty much irrelevant to their operations as far as I can work out.

Paul   

During my trip out on the Chiltern Line in the week, I took the opportunity to take some pictures at Princes Risborough and Bicester North to compare the track and platform layouts now the work has been completed compared with the situation before.

Here's the results:

PRINCES RISBOROUGH (before on the left, after on the right)

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/6153884034_b123941cbb_b.jpg)




(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6078/6153881870_46925a845b_b.jpg)




(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6153877680_94026bce25_b.jpg)




(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6153874656_24962f964b_b.jpg)




(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6153870030_cc91e0b3c0_b.jpg)




BICESTER NORTH (before on the left, after on the right)

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6153867030_1bce004649_b.jpg)




(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6153318651_74af234f0b_b.jpg)




(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6153862930_a668db4da4_b.jpg)




(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6153860622_963e26de92_b.jpg)

You might want to label before & after? To somepne who knows those areas very well, not even I can easily work out which are the new ones @ BCS. by elination, its doable (the unfinished platform being a give-away!)

But for those who don't know the line, the PRR photos could be difficult

Shame it isn't 4 tracks through both, tbh. It may not be needed for the timetable, but it would help in disruption.

As would spending ^millions on many other projects of course, not just those you mention. Four tracking through the tunnels into MYB would be even better! But it aint going to happen, any of those!

But I would assume retaining 2 fast tracks through both stations above would have cost relatively little (or less, as no platform movement). At least keeping the space for them so they can be added later at little cost.

As I've said, I'm a little surprised how they did Bicester, though an Up Bay platform could easily be installed at any time using the grassy area visible in the first pictures of Bicester above.  That would add a certain amount of flexibility, although the number of trains terminating there will reduce dramatically once Evergreen 3 is complete and the majority of trains turn left to Oxford before Bicester North.

At ^1million per point, it was a lot cheaper to do what they did. Funds were limited. They did what they did to get best performance for the funds available.

More may follow in their next franchise bid, but that's it after Oxford

Thanks very much for those photos, IndustryInsider: in particular, for taking the 'after' pictures from exactly the same position as the 'before' pictures.

It's all very useful to those of us who aren't familiar with the line!  :)

[Insert a joke here linking money growing on trees to "Evergreen" 3.]

Seriously worried about the effect of OXF services. Assuming extensions of paths only and no new rolling stock, I think a 3 or 4 coach 168 will be full by Water Eaton (definitely by Bicester). Thus commuters from Thame may struggle to get a seat (although it will no longer be Oxford's new station!).

Trains will leave London full and arrive at High W where tired commuters may face scrum conditions to get a seat (unless lots of people get off). I think the OXF to High W is expected to be a sizeable flow.

Hmmm - I'm worried that Chiltern is beginning to suffer due to its own success. :'(

Lots of people *will* get off in the evening, so I don't forecast that being a problem.

However, I do agree with your commrnts on the AM peak, in that pax from HWY will outnumber those from OXF getting off, so few if any seats for HWY pax.

I disagree however, with your OXF-HWY forecast - I think it'll be not very many. They must be driving right now-no other ublic transport company sees a flow there....so, even if you're right, Chiltern will need to get them out of their cars, and parking isn't exactly a problem currently in Wycombe.

But the flow, if there is one, is *into* OXF, I reckon. There is more employment in Oxford than Wycombe

Are there some more loco hauled rakes being introduced over time?

Yeah, sorry I meant HW to OXF flow. Even if the flows are next to nothing, there is risk of OXF services turning into sardine specials.

Re rolling stock: I hope so! Plus they're getting plug doors to help with dwell times!

Second set of Mk3 s are at webtec now....furst set still to return

I believe the idea is that the hourly mainline fast services will be LHCS all day, once they need to diagram more 168s on Oxford services.

Paul

As they are fare setters from Water Eaton -  MYB, I think they can adjust them to achieve the loadings they want....

There's a healthy discussion going on on newsgroup uk.railway at the moment - started in a thread about the proest petition, but has veered off now into Evergreen 3b.

I quote, from someone who has had discussions with someone in the Chiltern project team.....


Interesting 'info' (in quotes because nothing proved) about Water Eaton.....that was going to be double platform, ticket office, overbridge coffee cart/shp & newsagents...

When a point about the TWA Order being requisite planning authority, he came back with....


If Cherwell District Council put in an objection to the TWA enquiry, their submission ought to be in the public domain. I will try & chase it down.

Thanks for that detail, Chris, and yes, please find out all that you can.  I'm always very cautious about such 'info' - especially as the intention to 'double track throughout' as the poster states in their first paragraph was dropped years ago in favour of a single section from Islip to just west of Bicester Town (as well as an effective single section from Oxford to Wolvercote Tunnel).  If that might be pruned back further then it will make East-West Rail more costly to implement at a later date, and, if the intention is to run a 30-minute interval service, there will be precious little scope for service recovery.

Its that 30 minute service that makes me very nervous of believing much of the single-line stuff, ditto Water Eaton where I guess a single platform could cope with 2tph each way, but they woud have to be very much on time all the time!

I've no reason not to believe that the delay is being held up over details aroubd Bicester - its very obvious something is holding the TWA up, and its an odd reason to be made up.

Yes, they will set the fares but they won't have full flexibility to set them at what they want. They'll have to be lower than OXF to London fare, both Chiltern only and Any permitted.

One of the best resources on the EG3 enquiry website is this document:
http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/04Oct2010/CRCL-P-6-A%20-%20Proof%20of%20Evidence%20-%20Stephen%20Barker.pdf
which is Chilterns engineering summary, which goes through the route from end to end in a lot of detail, including inter alia the rationale for which bits are single and which double - and Water Eaton is described as double track.  The author includes various engineering objections at the end of the document, I don't see anything at that stage from Cherwell DC.

Paul

RAIL magazine this issue has an article on Mainline (and a seperate one on East-West Rail).  They have a quote from the Business Development Director of Chiltern saying he hopes the Oxford line will be finished by 2014, so the original May 2013 date seems less and less likely to be made.  I'll put my money on a May 2014 start date if we open up a book!

There's also mention of the loco hauled/MK3/DVT rakes - which will eventually number five in total.  There's currently two (though I'm sure I counted three when I had my day out last week!), two more should be delivered by next spring, with a final spare set shortly after that.  The five DVT's will shortly be fitted with a generator and fuel tanks to cut down on the idling noise of the Class 67's - they do make a racket!  No mention of plug doors though - the current sets certainly haven't got them, so whether they will go back for fitment at a later date I'm unsure?

There are at least 4 rakes already about at the moment - two are away at Wabtec having plug doors fitted & two are in service. I think the Rail article is referring to delivery as with plug doors.

One DVT has the generator fitted already I think. Not being done @ Wabtec as I understand, so separate fitments.

So again, don't believe the detail in these rail magazines - they're often wrong or incomplete. Why they don't check stories with the TOCs press offices, I don't know.

Sorry, I disagree - they won't *have* to be lower, but yes, they *probably* will.
Free parking & a faster service, together with easier access will attract all those living on that side of Oxford anyway, IMHO.


No, Chiltern will only be able to set an Any Permitted fare. Franchise rules prevent TOCs who fare-set from also having a TOC-only fare.

Might have found Cherwell DC's 'objections' to EG3 now.

http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/uploads/13Oct2010/Cherwell_1.pdf

The Tubbs Lane footbridge sounds like the possible problem area, rather than the number of car park spaces at Bicester Town - but surely it is difficult to see this as a show stopper...

Paul

Looks promising.....it is a resifdential area, I think

How many rakes are in daily service at moment?  If two are away at Wabtec then they can't be described as 'already about' surely?  Or have I misunderstood your post?


Regarding the RAIL article - which I never claimed was any more accurate than the forum posting by the way, just contradicting it - the DVT situation is that, according to their quoted source, Engineering Director, Kate Majoribanks, 83201/4 are currently at Wabtec being fitted with Harrington Generators International for a delivery by the end of the year, with the other three following by next spring.

I take it Chiltern be able to sell "Route: HW" tickets then. I assumed wrongly they might try selling them as CH only.

Will a Any permitted Water E P ticket be valid via Oxf?

No to your Water Eaton ticket routing qurery, so
In effect it will be Route HWY, because its the only valid route from there. But it will therefore still be Any Permitted, but only permitted via HWY!

That will be the only ticket availsble too.

Will Islip and Bicester Town lose their Any Permitted routeing as well then? Bit odd if Water Eaton will only have a flow to Marylebone whilst Islip and Bicester Town continue to have a flow which allows travel to Paddington.

Islip won't....Bicester Town *might*.

I can foresee that pax may well wish to travel from Town & return to BCS....and when I mentioned this to Chiltern management they agreed - saying one way to fix that would be to 'group' Town & North together as 'Bicester Stations', once their service starts.

If that happens, then I doubt Town would keep it's Oxford routing. If it does, then you could go North->MYB and PAD-Town, I guess. But my thoughts are that they would cut it.

Re Water Eaton, it will be another new build by Chiltern, so it'll be up to them. Yes, I agree that if the Bicester Group is able to use Oxford, then it'd be siully not to allow Water Eaton. But extinguish Oxford from Bicester & that would allow Water Eaton to not have Oxford either.

It would also mean that Chiltern wouldn't have to share the fareboxes from those stations which to me, is a BIG incentive!

Two or three. On RailForums board, there are 5 rakes detailed, and I know two are at Wabtec. So that should leave three, but of course you only see two inservice on any day, so it's difficult to tell without actually eyeballing them every day to be certain.


It the wording here that's confusing. If Rail means 'delivered' as in being in service after Wabtec with power doors, then the current number is zero. If they mean currently in Chiultern's hands, then it's five already. So, either definition produces an answer different to Rail's!


OK, I believe Kate. She definitely knows her stuff. Engineering degree and all. What she says goes - I'm sure I was informed that one had been done a short while ago.,

Lots of work to do re-programming fares data, journey planners and the Routeing Guide then. I think though that choice should remain, via OXF or via HWY.

Chiltern could, I believe have a route Direct priced cheaper than a route Any Permitted. I wouldn't like to see an historical flow (via OXF) removed from the fares database just so Chiltern can grab all the farebox from Islip, Water Eaton and Bicester Town. Here's hoping that isn't the deal they thrash out with ORR, DfT and FGW who currently set the fares.

Chiltern may argue that they're funding the new station and improved service, but I don't think they should use that excuse to limit the choice of the passenger.

The only *change* would be that from Bicester Town.

I reckon Islip, with very few pax, will remain unchanged routing-wise. Especially since Chiltern aren,'t altering the number of trains calling there (as I understand it), so at least it would double the number of services to LOndon if they remain able to travel in either direction.

As for Water Eaton, it's a brand new station, of course Chiltern will want the whole fare box. It's their idea & money (well, sort of!). There is no historical precedence there.

As for Bicester Town - they will get the choice of stations to use - ok they're both to MYB (some would say a 'better', more central London station and at least 3 tph, many more in the peaks. Better than Oxford, I reckon.

Watch the delay caused by the TWA Order though - this route was to be a diversion for Oxford pax during the Reading remodelling. It's likely to be majorly over if they don't get this very soon.

Oh, and Chiltern already now set the fares on that route!

Not on the flows to London according to NFM10.

Hmmm, ok. That might be news to some Chiltern management! ( or a typo by ATOC!)

The only fares I can find that are currently priced by Chiltern are those, Bicester Town/Islip <-> Oxford. 

Oh ok, that's right - I thought you were saying all fares (including between Bicester Town/Oxford) were still FGWs!

Chiltern are only getting towards Bicester T, and onwards to MYB eventually.