Lack of imagination on Cotswold line

[whole diary]

[Btline]

I have to say that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have really not taken advantage of the redoubling project.

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

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

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

[ellendune]

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

[gwr2006]

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

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

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

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

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

The infrastructure is designed to allow a more frequent service if the rolling stock can be found and this is clearly something for DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to specify in the new franchise.

[Andy W]

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

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

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

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

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has secured 5 Adelante trains from the summer to replace the remaining Turbo diagrams,

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

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

[IndustryInsider]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) has secured 5 Adelante trains from the summer to replace the remaining Turbo diagrams,

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

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

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

[paul7575]

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

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

Paul

[Andy W]

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

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

Paul

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

[super tm]

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

[paul7575]

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

I myself reckon the evidence is all available in NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s enhancement plans to show that the aim was to improve the existing service to the extent that it ran reliably, and that was all.  Nothing about additonal or faster services.

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

From the Mar 11 NR CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) enhancements plan

Paul

[Andy W]

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

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

[Andy W]

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

I myself reckon the evidence is all available in NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s enhancement plans to show that the aim was to improve the existing service to the extent that it ran reliably, and that was all.  Nothing about additonal or faster services.

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

From the Mar 11 NR CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) enhancements plan

Paul

Hi Paul,

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

[Btline]

From the Network Rail website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm pretty sure FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) said that they looked forward to seeing what journey time enhancements could be made. Of course, after Reading I expect London to Oxford to be cut to 50 minutes. At least 10 minutes could be cut off the rest of the journey time to Worcester in an instant by removing slack.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

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

[Btline]

The main reason why punctuality cannot be improved on the CL ... this needs more infra-structure development.

Hopefully there will be an entire recast soon.
Or do we have to wait for Reading, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and electrification are finished?

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

[IndustryInsider]

Hopefully there will be an entire recast soon.
Or do we have to wait for Reading, IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and electrification are finished?

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

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

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