Lack of imagination on Cotswold line

[whole diary]

[Andy W]

Hi GWR2006, Thanks for your reply,

The objectives for redoubling were very simple, and were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norton Junction cannot be improved until the Worcester area is resignalled, and the same applies for Wolvercot Junction. 

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

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

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

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

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

You could also stop some of the practices that cause delays - I'm thinking, particularly, of banning bikes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good news. Please don't tell us they will have 'refurbished' high density seating a la HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)

[Worcester_Passenger]

Good news. Please don't tell us they will have 'refurbished' high density seating a la HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)

Seconded!

[Worcester_Passenger]

Meanwhile, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are trying out a faster service today:

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

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

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm. 

Replacement road transport is currently being resourced to operate between Oxford and Worcester Shrub Hill in lieu of this service.

 

[IndustryInsider]

Meanwhile, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are trying out a faster service today:

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

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

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

[IndustryInsider]

Good news. Please don't tell us they will have 'refurbished' high density seating a la HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)

Seconded!

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

[Worcester_Passenger]

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

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

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

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

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

[IndustryInsider]

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

[IndustryInsider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

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

[Andy W]

Hi II & CPLG

Many thanks for your response II.

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

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

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

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

[pbc2520]

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

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

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

[IndustryInsider]

That is why  a scheme to double the car parking capacity at Hanborough has, I understand, been approved, despite not originally getting approval under the ^100M NR^» (Network Rail - home page) revenue generating fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Btline]

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

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

I still think the London centric attitude of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (when considering their HSS^▸ (High Speed Services)) will mean the untapped commuter flows to Worcester from the Vale will be ignored (esp when it would probably LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) that would run services) - this is a shame.

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

Still, it's getting better!